mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:03 pm

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?
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:11 pm

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
 
northstardc4m
Posts: 2724
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:17 pm

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.
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:21 pm

What was each one designed for should I say?
I know they we not flops but but not many orders?
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:02 pm

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 avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4919
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:43 pm

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
 
MesaFlyGuy
Posts: 3820
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:36 pm

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:06 pm

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!! 
The views I express are my own and do not reflect the views and opinions of my company.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 1447
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:23 pm

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
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:25 pm

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.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:28 pm

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
 
VC10DC10
Posts: 605
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:56 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:29 pm

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?
 
MesaFlyGuy
Posts: 3820
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:36 pm

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:41 pm

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.
The views I express are my own and do not reflect the views and opinions of my company.
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:50 pm

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 avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4919
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:56 pm

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 avatar
Polot
Posts: 4924
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:58 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23197
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:03 pm

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 avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 1412
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:24 pm

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.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word, and doesn't even make sense.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
 
User avatar
ATA L1011
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 6:47 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:14 pm

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 avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4919
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:29 pm

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
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 4463
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:37 pm

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
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 3957
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:48 pm

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.
 
DeltaB717
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:49 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:05 pm

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 avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 1412
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:20 pm

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.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word, and doesn't even make sense.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:21 pm

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.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 3957
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:30 pm

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 avatar
Polot
Posts: 4924
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:09 am

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.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:32 am

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.
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:45 am

If Boeing wanted to could they restart the 753 production with
greater success now than before?
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:52 am

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.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:52 am

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
 
mia305
Topic Author
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:26 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:55 am

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.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3018
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:07 am

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!!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 3957
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:08 am

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 avatar
Polot
Posts: 4924
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:39 am

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.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 3957
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:46 am

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.
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 4707
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:00 am

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.
New airliners.net web site sucks.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5644
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:32 am

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 avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2373
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:35 am

What the 764 lacked from the beginning was power.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5644
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Why Didn't The 757-300, 767-400, 717 Succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:26 am

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.
 
cornutt
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:57 am

RE: Why Didn't The 757-300, 767-400, 717 Succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:04 am

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.
 
avek00
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: Why Didn't The 757-300, 767-400, 717 Succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:10 am

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 avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 3785
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

RE: Why Didn't The 757-300, 767-400, 717 Succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:14 am

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.
Beauty is watching a 787 bank to make a short final. Bliss is watching that 787 with a good beer. Nirvana is all of that with a beautiful woman on your side.
 
TN486
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:08 am

RE: Why Didn't The 757-300, 767-400, 717 Succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:51 am

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
 
thorntot
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:31 pm

RE: Why Didn't The 757-300, 767-400, 717 Succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:28 am

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.
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: Why Didn't The 757-300, 767-400, 717 Succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:40 am

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.
POLAND IS UNDER DICTATORSHIP. PLEASE SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY, K.O.D.
 
ha763
Posts: 3168
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:36 pm

RE: Why Didn't The 757-300, 767-400, 717 Succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:16 am

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 avatar
RWA380
Posts: 4464
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

RE: Why Didn't The 757-300, 767-400, 717 Succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:00 am

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.
Next Flights: PDX-HNL-OGG-LIH-PDX On AS, WP & HA
 
TN486
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:08 am

RE: Why Didn't The 757-300, 767-400, 717 Succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:00 am

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
 
PanHAM
Posts: 8538
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Why Didn't The 757-300, 767-400, 717 Succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:44 am

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.

.
powered by Eierlikör
 
sankaps
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:51 am

RE: Why Didn't The 757-300, 767-400, 717 Succeed?

Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:18 am

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]