767333ER wrote:1989worstyear wrote:hOMSaR wrote:
Or their 737-800s from the same timeframe. What’s your point?
A 2002-built 757 is always viewed as old/aging on this site, whereas a similar-aged 777, A330, 738, or A320 is never referred to as such.
Oh well - more material for beer cans, and it will be interesting to see if it is the XLR, what design changes A made (1988 wing or fuel tank optimization ).
Because in 2002 the 757 was nearing the end of its production and was beginning to be outdated in terms of economics at that point. The 777 and 738 were relatively fresh still and the A320 and A330 had already been receiving incremental improvements with the A320 already being on what was basically it’s 2nd generation of engines. If you care to research, about 1/4 of their current 757 fleet is from the 90s and on any flight where even a same aged A321 could do it, the A321 would be much cheaper. A 2002 built plane is decently old as it has likely lived more than half of its service life in its original role. Just remember we’re all the same ones saying that AA was replacing their old/aging 738s with the MAX... well at least will be whenever they go again.1989worstyear wrote:n7371f wrote:The Harry Stonecipher special.
It was a dead-end design though. Too many 1982 parts and subassemblies
Innovation stopped after 1988 - hence why a 30 year old A320-200 is 95% parts-compatible with these A321LR's AA is ordering.
And yet they’re still slapping together 767s with their 1982 parts and sub assemblies and 737s with some of the 1964 parts and sub assemblies. It was only a dead end because they made it one. They could’ve kept the thing relevant if they had actually bothered to. The thing you have to consider is how much range it would have if they put engines from today on it how much farther it would go let alone engines from 15 years ago if they had any. Now they would have to consider whether that range is something they want or not. If no, the plane is overbuilt for its mission which is today’s reality. What they could do then is stretch it to make use of the overbuilt parts or redo it to trim it down keeping the range where it is which would mean less fuel therefore less gross weight and then it starts to sound more like the A321. The reality is today the A321 is all the metal and plastic you need with today’s technology to fully replace the 757. In hindsight yeah they’re probably not missing out on that much, but I’m sure it would’ve been a better use of money than the 747-8.
I think in hindsight - Boeing should have dropped both the 757/767, and 737 in 1999 and created a new NB with modern 1988 technology.
Also, the -100 is considered to be the first generation,
and all of the -200's are the second generation as they are all nearly identical over a 30 year time span. LH just retired D-AIPA after nearly 30 years, and she is about 95% parts-compatible with a NEO LR.