flydc10
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:20 pm

Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:02 am

Hey

I was just wondering why dosent Airbus lauch a plane that could be a good replacement for the 757, like an A321-300 a plane that has the same fuselage as the 321 and longer range like the 752, like something in the middle from the A321-200 and the A330-200.

P.S. I dont wanna make thia an A vs B thread


Regards
Flydc10
vivan nuestras aerolineas nacionales
 
User avatar
alberchico
Posts: 2985
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:52 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:04 am

the airbus a321 is already superior to the 757. They could simply do a stretched version with increased range and that would be it.
short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
 
cumulonimbus
Posts: 508
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:13 pm

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:09 am

And How is the A-321 superior to the 757?
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:14 am

I'll second that question about superiority.
 
BA380
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 9:59 pm

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:18 am

Alberchico - you say that the 321 could be stretched and the range extended to match the 757, but capacity-wise, the 321 is the same size, so it is only a question of range.
cabin crew: doors to automatic and cross-check...
 
teamregal
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:19 am

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 1):
the airbus a321 is already superior to the 757. They could simply do a stretched version with increased range and that would be it.

I hope that was sarcasm because if it wasn't, your world is quickly going to turn upside down!
 worried 

REGAL
You would dare to challenge me? .........Insanity!
 
Udo
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:22 am

Quoting Cumulonimbus (Reply 2):
And How is the A-321 superior to the 757?

The B757 is superior for longer medium and long haul flights due to its range, but the A321 is lighter and therefore offers more efficiency on medium and short hauls. It also offers better cargo loading capabilities and commonality with other A32X family members for many operators. Just look at the growing customer list for the A321, it speaks for itself. If there still were a market for the B757, Boeing wouldn't have closed the line, simple as that.


Regards
Udo

[Edited 2005-03-22 18:23:06]
Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
 
Orion737
Posts: 3044
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:14 pm

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:26 am

The capacity isnt the same! The 757 could seat 235 in charter configuration!

Also the 757s take off and landing performance is hard to beat. It got in and out of airports the 321 wouldnt be able to.

I just wish the 757 production had not ended until Boeing was able to offer a 757 replacement product.
 
contrails
Posts: 1312
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2000 11:53 pm

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:29 am

The 757 can not be replaced with anything built by Airbus. When a replacement is found it will be built by Boeing.
Flying Colors Forever!
 
Udo
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:31 am

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 8):
The capacity isnt the same! The 757 could seat 235 in charter configuration!

Which is not really relevent for many operators outside the UK.

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 8):
Also the 757s take off and landing performance is hard to beat. It got in and out of airports the 321 wouldnt be able to.

The problem is that all these today's and tomorrow's A321 operators really don't give a thought about flying to these certain destinations...


Regards
Udo
Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:32 am

Alberchico,

You'd better have some kind of backup for that kind of statement. I'll even bet there are Airbus fans out there that would debate this. The 757 is just as comfortable flying 3900 nm missions as it is on 390 mn missions. It's flexibility is unprecidented in the industry.

And on a lighter note, is of course, much better looking.  biggrin 
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6406
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:35 am

You beat me to it Udo.

Can't see how 757 is a technological marvel and A321 is a load of c**p (even though I love 757 as an aircraft).

It also amazes me how people cannot see how products lives can be curtailed by a combination of pressure from below and from above.

747 is a good example - because it is under pressure from 777/A340 below, and now A380 above, through no fault of the 747, it has migrated from being a mainstream product into having to squeeze into a niche between much more modern products.

Sound like the 757 at all?

Possibly the worst post I've read on this forum, SonicKidat wherever

Astuteman
 
gkirk
Posts: 23349
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:35 am

The 321 may have slightly better operating costs, but when it comes to perfomance, nothing beats the 757.
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
aa757first
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:40 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:36 am

Also remember that the A321 has a much longer take-off run. America West, a huge Airbus customer, didn't order the A321 because they were worried that it would have trouble departing LAS and PHX on a hot day, which of course are quite frequent in that region.

AAndrew
 
Udo
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:42 am

Quoting Contrails (Reply 10):
The 757 can not be replaced with anything built by Airbus. When a replacement is found it will be built by Boeing.

Why have important B757 operators then switched to A321 and why has Boeing stopped production?

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 13):
And on a lighter note, is of course, much better looking.

True, but totally irrelevant for airlines.

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 13):
The 757 is just as comfortable flying 3900 nm missions as it is on 390 mn missions. It's flexibility is unprecidented in the industry.

Many operators simply don't need the range. So goes the flexibility argument.

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 15):
The 321 may have slightly better operating costs, but when it comes to perfomance, nothing beats the 757.

It's a question of what you regard as performance.


Regards
Udo
Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5498
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:50 am

Uhmm.. isn't the 787-300 a replacement for the 757 in sorts.. I mean, they are somewhat the same as far as seats and range... but the 783 is more efficient and has better technology.. why keep the 757 open when you have a new aircraft ready to take it's place?

As far as 321 vs 757.. the 321 is a newer aircraft that is lighter.. but even after retirement, the 757 is still a hot aircraft with several airlines looking for 2nd hand aircraft..

I wouldn't be surprised if US doens't pull theirs back from the desert (if they are still there and if they are still in US possession) once/if they get back into good financial standing...
Aiming High and going far..
 
leelaw
Posts: 4520
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:10 am

There's no question the A321 is marginally more fuel efficient than the 752 on short to medium haul routes from airports which don't require high performance takeoff and landing capabilities. However, in terms of mission versatility, adaptability, and flexibility, the 752 is the winner hands down.
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
gkirk
Posts: 23349
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:16 am

Quoting Udo (Reply 16):
Don't tell me there's no demand for a 180-220 seater.

The fact that Airbus virtually give them away helps as well  Wink

Quoting Udo (Reply 17):
It's a question of what you regard as performance.

Take-off and landing performance is an area where the 757 clearly beats the 321, which struggles at airports with shorter runways due to brakes overheating etc, and the fairly long take-off run of the 321 compared to the spritely 757
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:19 am

Clearly, a replacement isnt needed. If it were, Boeing would still be selling the 757.

The market doesn't want a 757 replacement.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 19):
I mean, they are somewhat the same as far as seats and range...

No, they aren't. The 7E7-3 seats 300 in two classes, while the 757 seats between 185 and 200 in 2 classes.

N
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4235
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:26 am

Major 757 operaters have not switched to 321s--if they have they clearly did so because their demands did not require an aircraft as capable as the 757--and/or fleet compatibility. The 321 isn't exactly setting the sales charts on fire--like a previous poster said--there is no need for a 757 replacement, as there are second hand variants still available.
Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
 
singaporegirl
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2000 5:49 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:27 am

the b757 is without a doubt one of the most beautiful birds out there! too bad that sq didn't keep the b757s for too long and replaced them with the a310s. does anyone know why they were being replaced so quickly by sq (this happened way before i started flying for sq)?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kok Chwee SIM

Ladies & Gentlemen, we will now demonstrate the use of the safety equipment on this aircraft...
 
UAMAYBACH1239
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 12:46 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:27 am

The B757 is superior for longer medium and long haul flights due to its range, but the A321 is lighter and therefore offers more efficiency on medium and short hauls. It also offers better cargo loading capabilities and commonality with other A32X family members for many operators. Just look at the growing customer list for the A321, it speaks for itself. If there still were a market for the B757, Boeing wouldn't have closed the line, simple as that.


Regards
Udo
I dont think there was a loss of market for the 757 due to competition from Airbus. Just as it was mentioned in another thread, the 757 would be between the 737-8-900 and the 7E7 which would result in the same outcome as with the 747.
a/c flown 737-222/322/522 757/747-1-2-4, 767-2-3, 777-2-3, A319-20, DC10-10-30, L1011-3-5, 727-222adv, MD85-90 flyourfri
 
cumulonimbus
Posts: 508
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:13 pm

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:28 am

I think because of capacity issues.

Mike
 
OHLBU
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:35 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:31 am

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 7):
The capacity isnt the same! The 757 could seat 235 in charter configuration!

MYT seats 220pax in A321 v 230 in B757, so that is just about the same.

Quoting Cumulonimbus (Reply 2):
And How is the A-321 superior to the 757?

Simply because it has a wider cross-section, which makes the cabin feel more spacious. Just thinking about the passenger-appeal here cloudnine 
 
wingnutmn
Posts: 492
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:27 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:36 am

I have a couple questions.....First

NW and UA are probably the 2 biggest Airbus customers.....Why don't they fly A321's but have 757? Especially NW???

Cargo question- What is the difference in cargo capacity between these two planes. I don't believe I have ever seen a cargo outfit flying A321 (not say they don't), but I have seen 757 (UPS). If cargo was a big issue, NW would be flying A321 instead of 757 because cargo is a huge business and operation for them.

Performance questions- The 757 has always been know for its steep climbs and ability to get to its cruise altitude in a very short time, what is the speed, time and distance for the A321? Also, what are the service ceilings for the two planes and Normal and Max cruise numbers?

Just some ??? for you nutters out there!

WingnutMN
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
 
gkirk
Posts: 23349
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:36 am

I believe MyTravel actually have 233 in their 757s  Wink
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:02 am

This thread is ridiculous...

They are both good at what they were designed to do. Honestly, the 757 and A321 ARE NOT direct competitors. Look at the numbers (if you want to be anal and ask for the numbers, I suggest you visit http://www.boeing.com and http://www.airbus.com ). The 757 is really in a class by itself, while the A321 competes more with the 737-900 (especially if the -900X is built). The A321 features commonality with the A32x series, the 757 features commonality with the 767 series, so that really isn't an issue, especially since most 757 operators use the aircraft on routes a 767 might also be used on. They were designed for different purposes, two different types of operations. If the A321 is truly Airbus' answer to the 757, then, IMHO, they have failed miserably.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:06 am

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 30):
The 757 is really in a class by itself

The most accurate quote so far in this post.

Quoting Udo (Reply 17):
The 757 is just as comfortable flying 3900 nm missions as it is on 390 mn missions. It's flexibility is unprecidented in the industry.

Many operators simply don't need the range. So goes the flexibility argument.

Many don't, but some do. Re-enter the flexibility arguement.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
777gk
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2000 3:04 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:12 am

The 757 is a FAR more capable airplane, and Airbus has not to date produced an aircraft which even approaches the scope of missions the airplane is suitable for.

If anything I think the A321 should be compared to the 737-900, to which the argument that the A321 is superior certainly applies. The A321 is a stretched development of a tremendously successful airplane (A320) and the tradeoff is that the range of the 321 will not match the 320 and thus limits the spectrum of routings the aircraft can serve. The advantage is that seat-mile costs will be reduced, making the airplane one of the most efficient around.

The 757 makes no such sacrifices.
 
Danny
Posts: 3714
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:13 am

Answering the question some of you asked: A321 is superior in what is the most important now- the economy. By lower fuel consumption and commonality with A32X family it finished off 757.

Take off performance is great on photos here on a.net but this is not how airlines make money,
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:34 am

There will be a 757 replacemnt from Boeing-not Airbus. It is already in the works, the 737-900X. This aircraft is far more efficient for most routes and is a much closer competitor to the A-321. The Japanese are looking hard at it, as are several other carriers.

Quoting Danny (Reply 33):
Answering the question some of you asked: A321 is superior in what is the most important now- the economy

Precisely. Ergo, the 737-900X.
One Nation Under God
 
User avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:50 am

For most missions the A321 is a very good B757 replacement. The aircraft has almost the same seating capacity, but is significantly lighter, and burns significantly less fuel.

For carriers like British Airways, which don't use the B757 on flights any longer than 5hrs, there are no major drawbacks to the A321, and the capabilities of the B757 are largely wasted. With the B757 you are paying to fly quite a heavy aircraft around with half-empty fuel tanks, and that isn't cost effective, especially not with the current fuel prices.

Conversely, for many US carriers, which require the ability to use the B757 on longer routes, such as East Coast-Europe and California-Hawaii, then obviously the A321 falls far short of what is required.

Similarly for charter operators, their longer sectors and high payloads resulting from all-economy seating, means the A321 isn't a viable B757 replacement in many cases. Finnair's fleet demonstrates this difference, while the A321 is ideal for their European scheduled network, the B757 is required for their charter flights where sector lengths exceed 6hrs with a high payload.

As for performance;
The A321 actually has very good airfield performance, it certainly doesn't suffer any particular field perfrormance problems on the routes we utilise it on. The type is used extensivley into some very demanding airfields....

The A321 was the largest type operated into Innsbruck by UK carriers for several years, and for most of that time Leisure International/Air 2000 were the only UK airline flying anything bigger than a BAE146 into INN.

The A321 is one of the most common types used by UK airlines into Skiathos, which has a very short runway. The type is often able to return non-stop to the UK from Skiathos off the 5281ft runway, no mean feat for any aircraft operating a 3.5hr flight!

Prior to the runway extension, the A321 was also for several years the largest type used by UK carriers into Funchal. It was also one of the few types able to operate non-stop back to the UK, cutting out the fuel-stop in Porto Santo. Boeing 757s only came into common use on UK flights after the runway was lengthened, although Air Europe did use 757s in 1990/1 for very breif spell before they went of business.

Also, don't forget while the B757 may seem more powerful, but to complete an identical flight with exactly the same weight of passengers and cargo, the B757 will have to lift an extra 15-20T of weight off the runway due to it's size.

Where the A321 does struggle performance-wise is in the en-route climb phase, while the B757 will often climb straight to Fl350/370 the A321 will usually be stuck down initially at Fl330 and only able to climb later in the flight as fuel is burnt.

Against a strong headwind flights from the Eastern Mediterranean to the UK can strech the A321. When the flight times exceeds 5hrs with a full load you start to struggle to carry enough fuel to complete the flight - not beacuse the fuel tanks are full, but because you've hit MTOW (89T) Because charter carriers have more seats, and generally operate full, the range of all of their aircraft is somewhat less than manufacturers figures... The 93T MTOW variant goes a long way to address this isssue, but since we only have 1 such aircraft we can't rely on that capability as any aircraft could operate a particular service. However the 93T variant is essential for carriers like US Airways.

While the B757 is a far more capable aircraft than the A321, that extra capability is often just not required, and when it isn't required it just becomes an increase in DOC with no commercial benefit - for most missions the A321 will do what a B757 does for a lower trip cost.

However, with the B757 going out of production lease costs are falling, and this can swing things back in the B757's favour. You always have to factor in the overall cost of the operation, not just fuel and airport charges, but crew costs, maintenance and lease costs.

At the end of the day the relative merits of operating the B757 vs A321 depends on the individual airline, how they operate, the types of routes they operate and their organisational structure. For many airlines the A321 can fully replace the B757, for other carriers both types can be utilised in complimentary roles, and for other carriers the A321 isn't really suitable.

Saying one is better than the other isn't seeing the whole picture, there are companies who see a role for both types, and others who believe for their particular operation the A321/B757 is superior. It's all about getting the right aircraft, which may or may not be the largest/fastest/longest range/best performer.

It is impossible to make blanket statements that the A321 is/is not in the same category as the B757 when airlines evaluate their fleet needs.

Regards
CROSSWIND
 
milan320
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:25 pm

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:12 am

In terms of economics of the A321, some informatio was provided by LongHauler (an Airbus pilot) in the tech ops forum. This link should take you to his reply (hopefully):
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/109759/6/
/Milan320
I accept bribes ... :-)
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:17 am

Crosswind,

Very nice post sir. Welcome to my respected users list.

Boeing Nut.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:38 am

Quoting Danny (Reply 33):
By lower fuel consumption and commonality with A32X family it finished off 757.

...to suggest that the A321 "finished off" the 757 per se, is laughable at best.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
milan320
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:25 pm

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:47 am

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 37):
Crosswind,

Very nice post sir. Welcome to my respected users list.

I second that!
/milan320
I accept bribes ... :-)
 
QFA001
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 6:47 am

RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:59 am

Quoting Flydc10 (Thread starter):
I was just wondering why dosent Airbus lauch a plane that could be a good replacement for the 757, like an A321-300 a plane that has the same fuselage as the 321 and longer range like the 752, like something in the middle from the A321-200 and the A330-200.

Others have raised some good and some dubious arguments. I will raise two more:

  • The A320 wing. This is the wing that the A321 inherited. It was too small to enable the A321 to be an effective US transcontinental airplane. (To compensate for this, Airbus did a version with cargo hold fuel tanks.) So, to do an even higher MTOW version to get to, say, 4,000nm range would require a new or heavily modified wing. This leads into my next point...

  • Most B757s (76%) were built from 1990 onwards. So, most B757s won't require replacing until after 2010. (Considering that the bulk went to US customers, this could be delayed until 2015 onwards.) That timing co-incides with when Airbus and Boeing will replace their A32X and B737NG families. So, it will be then that the OEMs will be able to come up with a single-aisle solution for current B757 operators. In other words, a re-winged longer-range A321 now might be counter-productive for Airbus.

    Quoting Udo (Reply 6):
    Just look at the growing customer list for the A321, it speaks for itself.

    If it's speaking, it's not loud and clear.  scratchchin 

    Since it was launched in Nov-89, Airbus has sold 416 A321s (to 28-Feb-05). Between then and production shut-down, Boeing sold 407 B757-200s (pax only). So, it was only after Boeing closed the B757 line that the A321 out-sold it. Furthermore, since it entered service in Jan-94, Airbus has delivered 325 A321s. Since then Boeing has delivered 370 B752s.

    In more recent years, Airbus has delivered 35 A321s in 2002; 33 in 2003; and 35 in 2004. That is a rate of <3 airplanes per month. The average A321 delivery rate over the last 13 years has been 2 airplanes per month. Over its entire 22-yr production lifetime, the B757 averaged 3.5 airplanes per month.

    So, whilst it's a misnomer for anyone to claim that the A321 has been a failure, it is almost equally dubious for anyone to claim that it is a success. If the A321 truly were a prevalent B752 replacement, then Airbus would have sold more of them. What has allowed Airbus to keep a mediocre A321 production rate going is that production coat-tails on the super successful A319 and A320 versions. If it were a stand-alone it'd be a business failure.

    Quote:
    If there still were a market for the B757, Boeing wouldn't have closed the line, simple as that.

    Granted. However, what Boeing foresaw was the B757 production rate falling to below 6 per annum for a few years and then never again raising to above 3 airplanes per month. So, they canned it. It doesn't necessarily mean that the A321 has been successful in displacing the B757 in the marketplace.

    Quote:
    And demand for A321 is quite high...

    I think that I have clearly shown that that is not true.

    Quote:
    Don't tell me there's no demand for a 180-220 seater.

    Udo, if only you had made even a cursory glance at the scoreboard. With Airbus producing 2-3 A321s per month and with the B757 line shut, there isn't much demand at all. As I indicated, the A321 has survived as long as it has because of the success of its stablemates. Noone is rushing out to buy A321s.

    Quote:
    Why have important B757 operators then switched to A321 and why has Boeing stopped production?

    Some B752 operators that also have A320s have switched to the A321. Some others, such as NW or UA, haven't switched at all. However, no B738/752 operators have switched to the B737-900/900X, either (including CO). That should speak volumes to you about how important the young-ish B757 frames are to their respective operators.
  •  
    Udo
    Posts: 4288
    Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

    RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

    Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:02 am

    Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 19):
    I mean, they are somewhat the same as far as seats and range... but the 783 is more efficient and has better technology.. why keep the 757 open when you have a new aircraft ready to take it's place?

    First, the B787-3 cannot take the B757's role. Second, the aircraft is still some years away.

    Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 19):
    As far as 321 vs 757.. the 321 is a newer aircraft that is lighter.. but even after retirement, the 757 is still a hot aircraft with several airlines looking for 2nd hand aircraft..

    No doubt about that.

    Quoting Leelaw (Reply 20):
    There's no question the A321 is marginally more fuel efficient than the 752 on short to medium haul routes from airports which don't require high performance takeoff and landing capabilities. However, in terms of mission versatility, adaptability, and flexibility, the 752 is the winner hands down.

    It depends on where the aircraft is used. Your statement is true for certain US carriers, but for European carriers it's another story.

    Quoting Gkirk (Reply 21):
    The fact that Airbus virtually give them away helps as well

    Is that piece of crap the only input you have to offer?  tired 

    Quoting Drerx7 (Reply 23):
    Major 757 operaters have not switched to 321s--if they have they clearly did so because their demands did not require an aircraft as capable as the 757--and/or fleet compatibility.

    Major operators in the US haven't, but Europeans have. Range (and therefore higher weight) of the B757 is the important factor which most carriers don't need. The B757 didn't have a chance on short hauls any longer.

    Quoting Drerx7 (Reply 23):
    The 321 isn't exactly setting the sales charts on fire--like a previous poster said--there is no need for a 757 replacement, as there are second hand variants still available.

    I never said it's setting the sales charts on fire, but just check the increase of A321 operators in the last years. Aeroflot, Aigle Azur, British Airways, KTHY, MEA, Novair, Spirit, Turkish, Vietnam Airlines - just to name a few airlines which are relatively new operators. It just shows demand for a 180-220 seater is high. Without the A321 in the market, the B757 would have had a chance with some of these operators.

    Quoting UAMAYBACH1239 (Reply 25):
    I dont think there was a loss of market for the 757 due to competition from Airbus.

    Really? Just look at all the A321 operators and you will soon identify quite a number of former potential B757 candidates.

    Quoting WingnutMN (Reply 28):
    NW and UA are probably the 2 biggest Airbus customers.....Why don't they fly A321's but have 757? Especially NW???

    Because there's no need to replace some 96 (UA) and 52 (NW) reliable airliners at this time. The mission profile of these carriers is different from European carriers. UA and NW need the aircraft's range on many routes. And even if they were interested in A321s - both, and especially UA, wouldn't be able or willing to spend some billions on a fleet of new planes. NWA have to get older models out first.

    Quoting WingnutMN (Reply 28):
    Cargo question- What is the difference in cargo capacity between these two planes. I don't believe I have ever seen a cargo outfit flying A321 (not say they don't), but I have seen 757 (UPS). If cargo was a big issue, NW would be flying A321 instead of 757 because cargo is a huge business and operation for them.

    I meant the belly loading capacity of pax jets. And as I mentioned above, NWA have other problems right now than replacing B757 with A321. Though it's a possible future option.

    Quoting WingnutMN (Reply 28):
    The 757 has always been know for its steep climbs and ability to get to its cruise altitude in a very short time, what is the speed, time and distance for the A321?

    That's simply not relevant for many carriers.

    Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 30):
    the 757 and A321 ARE NOT direct competitors.

    It depends. On short and medium hauls they are competitors due to their similar capacity.

    Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 30):
    The A321 features commonality with the A32x series, the 757 features commonality with the 767 series, so that really isn't an issue, especially since most 757 operators use the aircraft on routes a 767 might also be used on

    The A321 shares more commonality with A32X family aircraft than B757 shares with B767.

    Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 30):
    If the A321 is truly Airbus' answer to the 757, then, IMHO, they have failed miserably.

    Why? The A321 is lighter and more fuel efficient on short and medium routes. The aircraft has never been designed to fly head to head on B757 long range routes.

    Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 31):
    Many don't, but some do. Re-enter the flexibility arguement.

    "Many" is the key word here.

    Quoting 777gk (Reply 32):
    The 757 is a FAR more capable airplane, and Airbus has not to date produced an aircraft which even approaches the scope of missions the airplane is suitable for.

    The A321 is FAR more capable on short and medium routes, because it burns less fuel and carries about the same amount of passengers. The B757 is more capable - but only on longer routes, and most airlines don't need the range. When do people finally get that?

    Quoting Crosswind (Reply 35):

    Excellent analysis. Nothing to add for me.



    Regards
    Udo
    Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
     
    FLY2LIM
    Posts: 1095
    Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 6:01 am

    RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

    Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:04 am

    Quoting Flydc10 (Thread starter):
    P.S. I dont wanna make thia an A vs B thread

    I'd say the thread managed exactly what the original poster wanted to avoid.
    Faucett. La primera linea aerea del Peru.
     
    DeltaMD11
    Posts: 1678
    Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 4:56 am

    RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

    Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:05 am

    Crosswind,
    I'd like to take a second to thank you for your post. Probably the nicest thus far of the thread.

    I would like to remind you of something that you sort of brushed on and then trailed off of. I appreciate your insight on the European charter markets and the role that the A321 plays. To shift focus a bit, in the United States, there are many 757's out and about (AA, UA, DL, NW, CO, US, HP, ATA and many other smaller airlines). Today, these 757's are doing anything from fully-loaded 1.5 hour hops to 3000 mile transcons and trips across the pond with full passenger complement and cargo. HP, to single out one airline in particular, uses their 757's for anything from shuttle hops between PHL and LAS in the scorching hot summer fully-loaded, to transcons in the same conditions. I think that speaks volumes about the aircraft itself as it related to reliability and ruggedness. I'm surprised that nobody took the time to mention that the 757 entered the market about 10 years before the A321. Ceteris paribus, the A321 order book will probably be for the most part dried up in 10 years. The A321 is nice in the respect that carriers that do want fleet/parts/crew commonality they have the capacity to take a step up.

    When it comes down to it, I don't think that we really need to debate which aircraft is better and for what reasons. We should appreciate things for what they are and realize that we're all aviation enthusiasts. Sure we may have our likes and dislikes, and yes at times it can be fun and interesting to pitt one aircraft against another. You have two great aircraft like the 757 and the A321 who have similar mission roles and where the 757 is strong the A321 is weak, and where the A321 fills a certain role more efficiently the 757 doesn't. Hell, I cant stand doing transcons in the A321 which I've had the pleasure of doing several times. I have my little pet peeves about the aircraft but that is no reason to make me not appreciate it on the whole. The bottom line is that they're both great machines and we should show respect to each accordingly.
    Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
     
    Udo
    Posts: 4288
    Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

    RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

    Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:22 am

    Quoting QFA001 (Reply 40):
    Since it was launched in Nov-89, Airbus has sold 416 A321s (to 28-Feb-05). Between then and production shut-down, Boeing sold 407 B757-200s (pax only). So, it was only after Boeing closed the B757 line that the A321 out-sold it. Furthermore, since it entered service in Jan-94, Airbus has delivered 325 A321s. Since then Boeing has delivered 370 B752s.

    The B757 was available much earlier and got significant orders from US carriers. Plus, when they ordered it, they needed the range. Being large American carriers, they ordered hundreds of the aircraft - in later years they just increased their existing fleets (e.g. AA, DL). That mostly explains the big difference in orders for the two models, plus the weakness of the early A321-100 version.

    Quoting QFA001 (Reply 40):
    In more recent years, Airbus has delivered 35 A321s in 2002; 33 in 2003; and 35 in 2004. That is a rate of <3 airplanes per month. The average A321 delivery rate over the last 13 years has been 2 airplanes per month. Over its entire 22-yr production lifetime, the B757 averaged 3.5 airplanes per month.

    Again, that can be explained by the high number of American orders. Btw, I wasn't really talking about numbers in total, but number of A321 operators which has gone up rapidly in the past years.

    Quoting QFA001 (Reply 40):
    So, whilst it's a misnomer for anyone to claim that the A321 has been a failure, it is almost equally dubious for anyone to claim that it is a success. If the A321 truly were a prevalent B752 replacement, then Airbus would have sold more of them. What has allowed Airbus to keep a mediocre A321 production rate going is that production coat-tails on the super successful A319 and A320 versions. If it were a stand-alone it'd be a business failure.

    Airbus weren't able to sell more A321 because the B757 was often already there. And again, take into consideration American carriers.
    And with more than 400 orders, it would not have been a failure as a stand-alone business.

    Quoting QFA001 (Reply 40):
    So, they canned it. It doesn't necessarily mean that the A321 has been successful in displacing the B757 in the marketplace.

    It has been done so in Europe and it will continue.

    Quoting QFA001 (Reply 40):
    Udo, if only you had made even a cursory glance at the scoreboard. With Airbus producing 2-3 A321s per month and with the B757 line shut, there isn't much demand at all. As I indicated, the A321 has survived as long as it has because of the success of its stablemates. Noone is rushing out to buy A321s.

    As I already said, I was referring to the increasing number of operators, not the total number of aircraft. And as I also said, with many B757 fleets still quite young, it's clear we don't have a rush. Expect demand to go up in the future when replacements are widely necessary.

    Quoting QFA001 (Reply 40):
    Some B752 operators that also have A320s have switched to the A321. Some others, such as NW or UA, haven't switched at all. However, no B738/752 operators have switched to the B737-900/900X, either (including CO). That should speak volumes to you about how important the young-ish B757 frames are to their respective operators.

    It's true, B757 fleets are still young with many operators. But some carriers are simply not able to purchase new aircraft, especially American carriers.



    Regards
    Udo
    Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
     
    User avatar
    Starlionblue
    Posts: 17208
    Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

    RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

    Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:41 am

    Quoting Flydc10 (Thread starter):
    I was just wondering why dosent Airbus lauch a plane that could be a good replacement for the 757, l

    If airlines still wanted to buy a plane with the characteristics of the 757, Boeing would still be building it and/or Airbus would build a similar aircraft.

    This is in no way a condemnation of the technical viability of the 757. There simply isn't a market for it. And as some posters rightly state, the 757 will be around for a long time.
    "There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
     
    UAMAYBACH1239
    Posts: 213
    Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 12:46 am

    RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

    Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:45 am

    Really? Just look at all the A321 operators and you will soon identify quite a number of former potential B757 candidates.

    The airbus is somewhat a second generation a/c compared to the 757, all that is mentioned in the threads above cargo, pax, distance etc... keep in mind this a/c has 20yrs under its belt, and it is arguably the better a/c.
    lets take a look at A321 operators, at this point in the industry, airlines finding themselves being more thrifty than ever. The airbus is that much cheaper that "potential B757 canidates" are going that route. I can promise you
    if the pricing was identical, giving both a/c the same specs. there would not be one A321 in the sky.
    a/c flown 737-222/322/522 757/747-1-2-4, 767-2-3, 777-2-3, A319-20, DC10-10-30, L1011-3-5, 727-222adv, MD85-90 flyourfri
     
    Udo
    Posts: 4288
    Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

    RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

    Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:08 am

    Quoting UAMAYBACH1239 (Reply 46):
    keep in mind this a/c has 20yrs under its belt, and it is arguably the better a/c.

    No it's not. It has more range, but is less fuel efficient on medium and short hauls.

    Quoting UAMAYBACH1239 (Reply 46):
    airlines finding themselves being more thrifty than ever. The airbus is that much cheaper that "potential B757 canidates" are going that route.

    It may be cheaper, but it's more fuel efficient because it weighs less and uses more modern engines.

    Quoting UAMAYBACH1239 (Reply 46):
    I can promise you
    if the pricing was identical, giving both a/c the same specs. there would not be one A321 in the sky.

    Well, that's a totally irrelevant "if if if" theory. The B757 IS not cheaper, it IS less fuel efficient. To reach the same specifics the B757 would have to be redesigned, if possible at all. That's like saying there would not be a single B777 in the sky IF the A340 offered same or better specifics...if earth stopped turning, we would all die...and so on and so on.
    Facts are relevent, not "ifs".


    Regards
    Udo
    Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
     
    leelaw
    Posts: 4520
    Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

    RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

    Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:34 am

    IMO, the 757 is much akin to the DC-3. It will be hauling cargo long after contemporary aircraft, particularly the A321, have been recycled into pop cans.

    [Edited 2005-03-23 00:37:25]
    Lex Ancilla Justitiae
     
    Cleared2Land4
    Posts: 168
    Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 11:42 am

    RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

    Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:37 am

    I think Airbus should. The 757s are getting old.
    United Airlines... "It's Time to Fly."
     
    TWA902fly
    Posts: 2871
    Joined: Fri Dec 31, 1999 5:47 am

    RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

    Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:54 am

    Quoting WingnutMN (Reply 27):
    NW and UA are probably the 2 biggest Airbus customers.....Why don't they fly A321's but have 757? Especially NW???

    you try to get an A321 from ORD to ANC... or DTW-ANC or HNL-SFO or BOS-LAX

    TWA902
    life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
     
    Iberia340600
    Posts: 758
    Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 5:57 am

    RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

    Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:14 am

    Quoting Flydc10 (Thread starter):
    P.S. I dont wanna make thia an A vs B thread

    Too late!  bomb 

    It is inevitable. The die hard Boeing fans will always say Boeings are superior and the die hard Airbus fans will always say Airbus is superior. End of story....this will never end.

    END THREAD!  SillyD
    Visca Barça!!
     
    QFA001
    Posts: 651
    Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 6:47 am

    RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

    Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:32 am

    Quoting QFA001 (Reply 40):
    The average A321 delivery rate over the last 13 years has been 2 airplanes per month.

    I would like to note that I made an error, here. The division should have been made over something closer to 11-yrs. Therefore, the average rate is about 2.5 airplanes per month. My apologies.

    Quoting Udo (Reply 44):
    That mostly explains the big difference in orders for the two models, plus the weakness of the early A321-100 version.

    Yet, even though Airbus has brought out the -200 at successively higher MTOWs beginning in 1995, the A321 is still only being produced at <3 airplanes per month. (The peak of 4 airplanes per month came in 2001.) That is quite close to its historical average, which means that demand is flat.

    The recent demand has remained and is forecast to remain flat even though the 93t version has been available since 2000; even though Boeing announced the shut-down of the B757 line 18 months ago; and even though its A319 and A320 stablemates will undergo a massive production ramp-up.

    In fact, in the last five years, Airbus has net sold just 62 A321s. To give that an order of magnitude to press the point, Boeing sold 58 net B717s during that same timeframe. Furthermore, compared to its backlog peak of >200 frames, the current A321 backlog stands at just 91 machines.

    Quote:
    Btw, I wasn't really talking about numbers in total, but number of A321 operators which has gone up rapidly in the past years.

    So, on one hand you're happy to claim that the B757 had the benefit of being in the market earlier and received "top off" orders from US carriers. OTOH, you have completely ignored that most new A321 operators all ready operate the A319 or A320.

    Also, why didn't you quantify what you meant by rapid increase?

    According to Airbus.com, there are currently 52 operators of the A321 compared to 26 at the beginning of 2000. So, it has doubled its operator base in the last five years at a rate of 5 new operators per annum. Is that a rapid increase, is it? Let me see ... the first 26 operators came online in six years. The next 26 came online in five years.

    Yup, sounds like a rapid increase.  Yeah sure

    How ever you want to interpret the word rapid, do you think with 62 net orders in the last five years that even this rate of operator expansion will continue? Of course it won't.

    Quoting Udo (Reply 44):
    And with more than 400 orders, it would not have been a failure as a stand-alone business.

    Of course it would have been a failure if it was stand-alone business. 325 deliveries in just over 11 years would be appalling for any airplane, let alone one in the higher volume, lower margin single-aisle market. For a (new) stand-alone product to be successful, an OEM would need to produce 3-4 airplanes per month. The A321 is clearly well below this level with an average of 2.5.

    Alas, I can seem to find the data I had that showed the number of A321s that Airbus believed it would sell in its first ten years. I do recall the number being in excess of 600 frames. So, Airbus has barely halved its internal estimates.

    Quoting Udo (Reply 44):
    It has been done so in Europe and it will continue.

    Don't count on it. I didn't want to repeat myself, but the vast majority of B757s will be replaced from 2010 onwards. There might be a few A321 sales in the interim, but airlines will wait for the next generation single-aisle.

    Quoting Udo (Reply 44):
    Expect demand to go up in the future when replacements are widely necessary.

    By then the A321 will have been launched 21 years previous. Airlines aren't going to be interested in that.

    Quoting Udo (Reply 44):
    It's true, B757 fleets are still young with many operators. But some carriers are simply not able to purchase new aircraft, especially American carriers.

    Which only goes to show that the 2010 timing becomes more prominent.

    Quoting Udo (Reply 46):
    Facts are relevent

    I couldn't have said it better myself, Udo.  bigthumbsup 
     
    SWISSER
    Posts: 1568
    Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:31 am

    RE: Airbus 757 Replacement

    Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:34 am

    Since I did not already see it,
    (not to start a war, just 5 strong facts over the 752!)

    *A321 is a digital fly by wire aircraft with 1 hydraulic system and two totally independent hydraulic systems to take full control over even without engine or APU power.

    *A321 FMGC is farly superior in calculations to the FMC possibilties of the 757.

    *A321 has a full 24hr performance/maintenance computer onboard for the engineer and pilots to save time and cost.

    *A321 has a modern glass cockpit with full TCAS and integrated TERR functions, highly needed in countrys with mountains and high traffic in the sky.

    *A321 is flyable by crew's of A319/A320/A330/A340
    What time is top of descent?

    Popular Searches On Airliners.net

    Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

    Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

    Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

    Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

    Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

    Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

    Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

    Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

    Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

    Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

    Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

    Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

    Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

    Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

    Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos