User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:31 am

Fuel economy tests conducted in the 1990s indicated that the B753 had roughly the same or slightly better fuel burn rate per seat as the B737-800.

Boeing 737-800 1997 162 seats (11.2 lb/mi) (96 mpg‑US/per seat)
Boeing 757-300 1998 243 seats (16.62 lb/mi) (98 mpg‑US/per seat)

Sales of the B753 were abysmal. Only 55 jets in a five year period, and most of them in the USA and a handful in Europe. None in Latin America, Africa , Asia or Oceania. With the right doors, the B753 had an FAA upper limit of 295 seats.

I know that tests showed that boarding the 757-300 could take up to eight minutes longer than the 757-200, but given its 3400 nm range that couldn't have been very important. Since the jet was 178 ft 7 inches in length, it had a retractable tail skid on its aft fuselage to avoid tail strikes.

Can we rank this marketing disaster up to claustrophobia? Boeing seemed adamant that a single-aisle 180' jet was not a potential candidate for the B797. I consider this a direct result of the dearth of sales of the B753 in Asia.

I would like a second opinion. It would seem like a lot less risky than an entirely new design.
 
Philippine747
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:54 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:40 am

I once read due to the length and the fact that it was a narrowbody, the 753 had long boarding times which could affect the turnaround time...
A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 AT75 AT76 B732 B733 B738 B744 B752(M) B763 B772 B77W DHC7 DH8C DH8D D328 MA60

2P 5J 6K CX DG EK GA KE MI PR VN OS QR A3 OK TG RA U4 JL GK UB K7 WE
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9377
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:49 am

Timing. The 753 was introduced way too late into the 757’s life cycle. If it was released in the late 80s/early 90s it would have been far more successful.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:50 am

The 757-300 entered service 2 years before 9/11 and the worst ever aviation downturn. Any order potential disappeared with 9/11. Airlines needed to shrink so the few orders that were placed were for 737s. Continental effectively ended the 757-300 when they swapped orders to 737-800 as capacity demand slumped

Unlike today orders were much smaller back in the 1990s. Airlines made smaller initial orders and exercised options as their fleet needs grew. It was extremely rare to order airplanes with delivery slots more than 3-5 years in the future.

The 767 almost had the same fate, but ANA, JAL and LAN saved the 767 in the post 9/11 slump.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 5429
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:53 am

PacoMartin wrote:
Boeing 737-800 1997 162 seats (11.2 lb/mi) (96 mpg‑US/per seat)
Boeing 757-300 1998 243 seats (16.62 lb/mi) (98 mpg‑US/per seat)


You'd do better with better comparisons. As good as a 738 isn't the benchmark: look at 739s and 321s of the era (which had commonality with vastly larger fleets), and A330s.
 
kimimm19
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:34 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:49 am

Honestly, I feel like with a few tweaks, a neo version of the 757 would be a casm killer which is what airlines would want these days.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 7268
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:03 am

It was absolutely due to timing:

1) Late in the program life-cycle. If the 753 was introduced earlier it would have been a potential option during the peak of the 752 orders and its likely some airlines may have upgauged their 752 orders to the 753 or continue to expand upon their exist 757 fleets

2) 9/11 and the following industry and economic downturn. Some of the most viable potential customers (UA, AA, DL and additional top-off orders from NW & CO) were in no financial position to do so at the time.

3) Miss-timed to for a lot of fleet replacement. It came out too late for most customers to be a viable replacement on the low end of DC-10 / L-1011 flying. They only captured that segment really for NW. They competed with themselves on a lot of it with 737NGs that many airlines jumped on at the time. The only hope was to maybe capture some of the early-build 757 and 762 fleet replacement but the industry was in full retraction mode at that point.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:08 am

Timing was bad as pointed out.

Technically it was quite heavy for a stretch. The empty weight gain is higher percentage wise than any other stretch. I assume this was due to the fuselage being so long and skinny it was structurally inefficient.

Boarding times were also poor. That fuselage cross section is good for 737 length but the 757 usually had turnaround times that were worse than a widebody.

The 757-300 is probably the most overrated aircraft on airliners.net
 
phatfarmlines
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 12:06 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:11 am

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
3) Miss-timed to for a lot of fleet replacement. It came out too late for most customers to be a viable replacement on the low end of DC-10 / L-1011 flying. They only captured that segment really for NW. They competed with themselves on a lot of it with 737NGs that many airlines jumped on at the time. The only hope was to maybe capture some of the early-build 757 and 762 fleet replacement but the industry was in full retraction mode at that point.


I'd also add the major focus in the late 1990's fleet renewal for the incumbent legacy carriers at the time was heavily weighted towards RJ's for the domestic fleet and not mainline.

"Make it smaller" was the theme as the 90's concluded..... The 757-300 which CO/NW used to replace the domestic/Hawaii configured DC-10 was not vis-a-vis.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 7268
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:23 am

In the late-90s, the ERJ/CRJ was the shiny new object that many airlines loved since it filled that perplexing void between 34-45 seat turboprops and 120 seat mainline aircraft. It enabled frequency like never before, it upgauged prop routes, and all at B-scale wages and cost. It didn't really detract from 753 sales but ultimately really killed the 717.

The economics of the 753 really only work as a single-class charter configuration, or on routes for like UA/DL that can charge a premium on the incremental seats over a A321/739/752 on high-volume, high-demand flights at peak times.
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2104
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:24 am

Outside of the US, the 752 was hardly a sales success. The 753 made absolutely no sense unless you were operating it alongside an existing 752 fleet so the 753 pretty much needed to make all its sales in the US and, apart from a couple of European charter operators, that's what happened. With the benefit of hindsight, you can see it was doomed from the start.
717, 721/2, 732/3/4/5/7/8/9, 742/3/4, 752/3, 762/3, 772/E/W, 788/9, 300,310, 319,320/1, 332/3, 359, 388, DC9, DC10, F28, F100, 142,143, E75/90, CR2, D82/3/4, SF3, ATR
 
ewt340
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:37 am

It doesn't offer what airlines needed at that time. Back then narrow-body aircrafts are only being used for domestic or short regional flights. Some of them doesn't even have enough range like today's narro-bodies.

B757-300 while economical, would probably be too big for majority for most domestic or regional flights. Frequency with smaller aircraft are all the rage, even today. And the -300 wasn't that small either. It's actually a big plane for narrow-body.

B757-200 was better cause it's not too big to fill for most of the times while providing enough frequency for the routes.
 
Zidane
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 2:44 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:55 am

Given that DL and UA both operate the type, albeit through merger acquisitions, would it be of good use to AA today?
 
planecane
Posts: 1041
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:24 am

kimimm19 wrote:
Honestly, I feel like with a few tweaks, a neo version of the 757 would be a casm killer which is what airlines would want these days.


"A few tweaks?" To be a CASM killer, the 757 would need a major redesign including a new (likely CFRP) wing.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 6767
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:32 am

Zidane wrote:
Given that DL and UA both operate the type, albeit through merger acquisitions, would it be of good use to AA today?

AA did at least explore it. Theres a picture of an AA 753 model in this link.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielreed/ ... eader/amp/
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6471
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:37 am

For all its warts, the 757-300 was far and away the lowest-CASM mainline commercial aircraft until the A320neo and 737 MAX showed up. The lack of orders had two causes IMO: timing, as discussed above, and lack of commonality with the 737 and A320 families that the airlines could see were their long-term future.

I think the 757-300s will be the last passenger 757s in service, and that all 45 of them will be flying until the bitter end for established 757 operators.
 
airlineworker
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:20 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:46 am

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
The 757-300 entered service 2 years before 9/11 and the worst ever aviation downturn. Any order potential disappeared with 9/11. Airlines needed to shrink so the few orders that were placed were for 737s. Continental effectively ended the 757-300 when they swapped orders to 737-800 as capacity demand slumped

Unlike today orders were much smaller back in the 1990s. Airlines made smaller initial orders and exercised options as their fleet needs grew. It was extremely rare to order airplanes with delivery slots more than 3-5 years in the future.

The 767 almost had the same fate, but ANA, JAL and LAN saved the 767 in the post 9/11 slump.


You nailed it correctly, airliner orders were down, it was a great plane but at the wrong time.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3150
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:03 am

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
In the late-90s, the ERJ/CRJ was the shiny new object that many airlines loved since it filled that perplexing void between 34-45 seat turboprops and 120 seat mainline aircraft. It enabled frequency like never before, it upgauged prop routes, and all at B-scale wages and cost. It didn't really detract from 753 sales but ultimately really killed the 717.

The economics of the 753 really only work as a single-class charter configuration, or on routes for like UA/DL that can charge a premium on the incremental seats over a A321/739/752 on high-volume, high-demand flights at peak times.


the717 was killed by Boeing sales reps pushing airlines to the the 737-700 & trying to do the same with the 737-600. There was a proposed strth but it would have hurt the 737-700 based on fuel burn specs.
 
b747400erf
Posts: 3136
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:51 am

May I introduce the op to the A330 and B777 they ruined any chance the b753 had
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 592
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:19 am

b747400erf wrote:
May I introduce the op to the A330 and B777 they ruined any chance the b753 had


I'm not sure the 753 was intended to occupy the same market segment as the long range mid 90s WB twins.
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2434
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:56 am

In the most simple of terms: It was the answer to a question almost nobody was asking.
Signature. You just read one.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:59 am

Philippine747 wrote:
I once read due to the length and the fact that it was a narrowbody, the 753 had long boarding times which could affect the turnaround time...


The 753 boards about as fast as an 738 or A320 and faster than an A321. Boarded plenty in Condors sardine version and turn time was no different from the others, using the L2 door makes a hell lot of a difference.
The long boarding time is an myth. At least if the boarding team is halfway competent explaining where to go, "passengers seated in rows 1 through 10 will find their seats to the left of the door".

1989worstyear wrote:
b747400erf wrote:
May I introduce the op to the A330 and B777 they ruined any chance the b753 had


I'm not sure the 753 was intended to occupy the same market segment as the long range mid 90s WB twins.


:checkmark:
It somewhat short range compared to the 752 was one of the reasons it didn't sell more, at least as far european charter operators are concerned. I remember reading an analysis when it came out, and being a bit short on range was a problem, as it cost the 753 the advantage the 752 had over the A321, range, while it would have beaten it slightly on per seat costs.

And between 9/11 and GFC airlines where not exactly in order mode for big airplanes.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:06 am

early 753 could eat 762 market, thats reason it come late.

yes, its looks too much overstretch, heavy and longtaily

also 753 with range penalty come to A321 meadow, where he not have advatages and more low filling risks.
 
User avatar
FlyRow
Posts: 675
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:05 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:12 am

I'm sure that Boeing still has the tooling, they should restart with a few tweaks and everyone will buy it, it is and was and will be the best plane ever.





----> every 757 thread.
F70-F100-RJ85-RJ70-E190-319-320-321-733-734-735-737-738-752-753-763-764-772-744-380
 
upperdeckfan
Posts: 908
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:59 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:17 am

European and Asian markets were not ready for NB long-haul back in the days.

DC10's, 747's and early 777's ruled asian and euro skies in the late 90's. Even today you still see a good amount of WB's on asian regional routes.
748,744,742,741,772,773,762,763,
764, 789, 732,733,735,737,738,739,
752, 722, 717,74M,DC10,DC9,M82,
M83, M87, M88,310,319,320,321,332,
333, 343, 346,359,388,L1011,CR2,
CR7, CR9,CRK, E175,E190,ATR42,
DSH8, CS1,CS3
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:42 am

What do you expect from a version that appears 16 years after the baseline was launched and still uses the engines of the same technological standard and the same wing?

But interestingly all 55 made, are still flying 20 years after the first flight of the type.

In the end if was a victim of the arrogance times at Boeing, when they did not take Airbus seriously. A 753 flying by 1990 would have largely exterminated the A321 and the A300, but would also have hurt the 767.
 
airbazar
Posts: 9577
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:48 am

9/11 had nothing to do with it. The 757 was dead before 9/11.
The 757 in general had already been replaced by the A320 series and the 737NG at most of the world's carriers. Only a few carriers were left still operating a sizable fleet of 757's, mostly U.S. carriers that were in such dire economic situation they couldn't afford to buy new planes. Charter carriers liked the 753 but Charter carrier don't usually have big fleets so they were never going to make up for the lack of interest from the world's network carriers.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:25 pm

seabosdca wrote:
For all its warts, the 757-300 was far and away the lowest-CASM mainline commercial aircraft until the A320neo and 737 MAX showed up.


The 757-300 was worse in CASM than the A321, which was only in service for around 5 years before the 753 (more A321s were sold in the 5 years before 753's EIS than were sold by the 753 during its entire lifespan).


Now, if you had said the 757-300 had significant payload-range advantage over A321 until the neo showed up, I'd agree with you.
 
CHRISBA35X
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:40 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:30 pm

I've flown the 753 on TCX a couple of times and couldnt wait to get off. Cramped and a nightmare to deplane if you are sat at the back. I'm sure they are great for the bean-counters but not much fun to fly on and i say that as someone who goes out of his way to take 757s if there is a choice as I love them.
 
slider
Posts: 7385
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:51 pm

Polot wrote:
Timing. The 753 was introduced way too late into the 757’s life cycle. If it was released in the late 80s/early 90s it would have been far more successful.


This is the correct answer. Market timing absolutely doomed the 753.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 7268
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:59 pm

airbazar wrote:
9/11 had nothing to do with it. The 757 was dead before 9/11.
The 757 in general had already been replaced by the A320 series and the 737NG at most of the world's carriers. Only a few carriers were left still operating a sizable fleet of 757's, mostly U.S. carriers that were in such dire economic situation they couldn't afford to buy new planes. Charter carriers liked the 753 but Charter carrier don't usually have big fleets so they were never going to make up for the lack of interest from the world's network carriers.

The 757 was already in its twilight prior to 9/11 and the subsequent industry & economic downturn, but that was ultimately the knock-out punch that finished it off.
2001 was the last year of any substantial orders and the biggest potential buyers for additional top-off orders of 757s were in no position to order any more further.
Conceivably, had economic & industry conditions not deteriorated so quickly, there may have been a few more top-off and end-of-line orders places on the 752 & 753 that maybe, maybe would have extended production out a few more years and surpassed 1,100 units.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 7268
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:02 pm

CHRISBA35X wrote:
I've flown the 753 on TCX a couple of times and couldnt wait to get off. Cramped and a nightmare to deplane if you are sat at the back. I'm sure they are great for the bean-counters but not much fun to fly on and i say that as someone who goes out of his way to take 757s if there is a choice as I love them.

Boarding and deplaning the 753 in the 2-class layout for DL and using the L2 door is no worse than the other large narrow-bodies.
Its not materially different than the A321, which takes upwards of 20 minutes to deplane when seated in the last row.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 592
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:21 pm

seahawk wrote:
What do you expect from a version that appears 16 years after the baseline was launched and still uses the engines of the same technological standard and the same wing?

But interestingly all 55 made, are still flying 20 years after the first flight of the type.

In the end if was a victim of the arrogance times at Boeing, when they did not take Airbus seriously. A 753 flying by 1990 would have largely exterminated the A321 and the A300, but would also have hurt the 767.


The A320 NEO still uses the same -200 wing from 1988. This hasn't affected its sales.

I'm sure if the 753 range was better and the industry downturn hadn't happened in the early 00's more would have been ordered.
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:33 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
You'd do better with better comparisons. As good as a 738 isn't the benchmark: look at 739s and 321s of the era (which had commonality with vastly larger fleets), and A330s.


The A321 is a good comparison, but the 739 was really the replacement after the 753 was deemed a failure.

Boeing 757-300 1998 243 seats (16.62 lb/mi) (98 mpg‑US/per seat)
Boeing 737-800 1997 162 seats (11.2 lb/mi) (96 mpg‑US/per seat)
Airbus A321-200 1996 180 seats (12.8 lb/mi) (94 mpg‑US/per seat)
Boeing 737-900ER 2006 180 seats (12.1 lb/mi) (99 mpg‑US/per seat)

The 753 (55 orders) had much better fuel economy than A330-200 (660 orders) and the A330-300 (789 orders).

Airbus A330-200 1997 241 seats (21.0 lb/mi) (76 mpg‑US)
Airbus A330-300 1992 262 seats (22.2 lb/mi) (79 mpg‑US)

As I stated in OP the extra 8 minutes of boarding time shouldn't matter if it was flying anywhere near it's maximum range. We are not talking about Southwest flight segments that averages less than 800 miles.

seabosdca wrote:
For all its warts, the 757-300 was far and away the lowest-CASM mainline commercial aircraft until the A320neo and 737 MAX showed up. The lack of orders had two causes IMO: timing, as discussed above, and lack of commonality with the 737 and A320 families that the airlines could see were their long-term future.

I think the 757-300s will be the last passenger 757s in service, and that all 45 of them will be flying until the bitter end for established 757 operators.


It is actually 55 jets as none have been retired. Your post is very positive, why don't you think that the B797 should look more like a B753 instead of a B763?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:04 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
seabosdca wrote:
For all its warts, the 757-300 was far and away the lowest-CASM mainline commercial aircraft until the A320neo and 737 MAX showed up.


The 757-300 was worse in CASM than the A321,


The one Airline flying the 753 and going to the A321neo would seem to disagree:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -3-453591/

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
airbazar
Posts: 9577
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:21 pm

slider wrote:
Polot wrote:
Timing. The 753 was introduced way too late into the 757’s life cycle. If it was released in the late 80s/early 90s it would have been far more successful.


This is the correct answer. Market timing absolutely doomed the 753.


I disagree. The A300 and 767 filled the role of the 753 pretty well, albeit at a slightly higher operating cost. But fuel was cheap and fares were still high so airlines were happy operating a plane they already had in the fleet rather than go spend money on a brand new plane for the exact same missions.
The reality is that what we enthusiasts see as a great feature of the 757, its range and payload capabilities was ultimately what was responsible for its demise when put against much lighter and efficient competitors. The 753 was always going to be stuck in a very small niche between the small widebodies and the largest narrowbodies, regardless of timing. And that is why Boeing has been dragging its feet on launching the MOM :)
Last edited by airbazar on Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
mrbots
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:31 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:22 pm

Improvement in the traditional narrowbodies and fleet commonality I'm sure was huge too. When the 757 debuted the capability of NB's was much more constraining than they are today. With the size and range of the A321 and 739 (and soon 10) there aren't many use cases left to justify a few unique aircraft in the fleet with lesser commonality. Also, boeing and airlines work closely together, if there was a market for an upgraded 757 they'd make it.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:23 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
The one Airline flying the 753 and going to the A321neo would see[url][/url]m to disagree:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -3-453591/


... and every other airline that bought the A321 instead of the 757-300 when both were on sale would disagree.


Arkia has also been a charter airline for most of its life - flying as far as New York. Which of course is entirely unsuited to an A321ceo - you'd probably have to land twice, with the 2nd stop somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic ocean - to carry good payload that far. Which would tend to have an adverse affect on operating costs.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:30 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
seabosdca wrote:
For all its warts, the 757-300 was far and away the lowest-CASM mainline commercial aircraft until the A320neo and 737 MAX showed up.
The one Airline flying the 753 and going to the A321neo would seem to disagree:


Arkia (Israel) bought two 753s and sold one to Icelandair in March 2018. It is not really a "disagreement" with the earlier statement since Arkia is going to replace the 20 year old jet with a brand new A321LR.

The jet will probably not be the first 753 to retire, as Icelandair is short of jets since they were depending on the MAX to upgrade their fleet. They will probably purchase the remaining one from Arkia

Amiga500 wrote:
The 757-300 was worse in CASM than the A321, which was only in service for around 5 years before the 753 (more A321s were sold in the 5 years before 753's EIS than were sold by the 753 during its entire lifespan).


As I understand it, CASM is a measure of an airline's operation possibly narrowed down to a model. When comparing two jet models, you normally look at fuel burn. As I stated above the 753 and 321 had similar fuel burn rates per seat.

Please correct me if I am wrong. I would be interested in seeing tables comparing CASM for different models and the underlying analysis.
Last edited by PacoMartin on Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:30 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
The one Airline flying the 753 and going to the A321neo would see[url][/url]m to disagree:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -3-453591/


and every other airline that bought the A321 instead of the 757-300 when both were on sale would disagree.


i would think few, if any, Airlines had a 275 seater in the running against a 220 seater at all. That almost like comparing A319 sales with A321 sales and concluding that the A319 has better CASM, which the A319 clearly didn´t even when it was the families hot-selling item.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2370
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:42 pm

It came too late in the life of the 757 program. If it had come 5 to 10 years earlier, it may have sold more copies. Also a 757-200ER could have been developed using parts developed for the 757-300. Boeing offered it to Continental late in the program, but they weren't interested by that time.
 
kimimm19
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:34 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:52 pm

planecane wrote:
kimimm19 wrote:
Honestly, I feel like with a few tweaks, a neo version of the 757 would be a casm killer which is what airlines would want these days.


"A few tweaks?" To be a CASM killer, the 757 would need a major redesign including a new (likely CFRP) wing.


I doubt that, seeing as the 737 and a320 wings were largely the same on their newest versions.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 592
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:53 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
It came too late in the life of the 757 program. If it had come 5 to 10 years earlier, it may have sold more copies. Also a 757-200ER could have been developed using parts developed for the 757-300. Boeing offered it to Continental late in the program, but they weren't interested by that time.


How is this any different to the NEO or MAX?
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:54 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
As I understand it, CASM is a measure of an airline's operation possibly narrowed down to a model. When comparing two jet models, you normally look at fuel burn. As I stated above the 753 and 321 had similar fuel burn rates per seat.

Please correct me if I am wrong. I would be interested in seeing tables comparing CASM for different models and the underlying analysis.



Fuel burn is part of Cost per Available Seat Mile.

When comparing two similar models in terms of technology, yes, fuel burn is normally the key differentiator.

However, in this case, the 757's maintenance costs are significantly more than the A321.



Regarding the table you seek - extremely fortunately - someone has already looked into this in the more distant past:

http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sample ... sample.pdf

From that, the 757-200 has DOC ~27% higher than an A321 and (very favourable numbers used), a 757-300 has DOC ~38% higher than an A321.

Exclusing lease rates etc - then you might as well take DOC/capacity as CASM.

It then means the 757-200 has CASM ~20% higher than A321 and 757-300 has CASM ~8% higher than A321.


Which of course ties in with the buying patterns and extinction of the 757. If you didn't need the range, airlines bought either a 737-900 or an A321.
 
Natflyer
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:29 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:09 pm

CHRISBA35X wrote:
I've flown the 753 on TCX a couple of times and couldnt wait to get off. Cramped and a nightmare to deplane if you are sat at the back. I'm sure they are great for the bean-counters but not much fun to fly on and i say that as someone who goes out of his way to take 757s if there is a cdhoice as I love them.


Well, you chose to fly with TCX that put in a lot more seats than anyone else. Uncomparable. 280 seats.
Condor has 262 and the legacy airlines about 220.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2370
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:21 pm

1989worstyear wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
It came too late in the life of the 757 program. If it had come 5 to 10 years earlier, it may have sold more copies. Also a 757-200ER could have been developed using parts developed for the 757-300. Boeing offered it to Continental late in the program, but they weren't interested by that time.


How is this any different to the NEO or MAX?


Volume! The whole 757 program sold just over 1,000 airframes over the life of the program. The 737 MAX alone has over 5,000 orders with years of backlog even at the pre-grounding production rates. Boeing was able to convert the 757 line into a 737NG line and generate more revenue from buildings it already had and was paying to heat and cool.

The 757 was built too big. Had it been built as direct 727-200 replacement rather than scaled up as a growth substitute for a never built 727-300, Boeing would probably never had to stretch the 737 beyond the length of the 737-300 or 400. The 757 was too heavy to compete against the A321 on short to medium haul. That's why BA got rid of them and sold them for conversion to freighters.
 
planecane
Posts: 1041
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:26 pm

kimimm19 wrote:
planecane wrote:
kimimm19 wrote:
Honestly, I feel like with a few tweaks, a neo version of the 757 would be a casm killer which is what airlines would want these days.


"A few tweaks?" To be a CASM killer, the 757 would need a major redesign including a new (likely CFRP) wing.


I doubt that, seeing as the 737 and a320 wings were largely the same on their newest versions.


Both were designed after the 757 wing. The 757 is too heavy to be competitive. The A321NEO uses engines with around 20% less thrust and has almost the same passenger capacity and the XLR has the same or more range.

A re-engined 757 would have better field performance and more payload range than the A321 but no way would it be a CASM killer.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:49 pm

Comparing the 753 to the A321 misses the main problem of the 753, it was way too late to the market. The A321-200 flew 9 years after the first flight of the baseline version, the 753 flew 16 years after the baseline version.
 
fightforlove
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:56 pm

Probably because it was a bitch to de-plane.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Why didn't the B753 sell better?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:13 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Regarding the table you seek - extremely fortunately - someone has already looked into this in the more distant past:


Thank you. The table you cite has fuel burn (total airplane) for the B753 as 48% higher than the A321-200, while the numbers I cited from late 1990s tests show only 30% higher.

Those higher numbers would certainly tilt the decision towards the A321.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 62k64k, 747classic, A35J, afterburner, An-225, Aquila3, AZORMP, Baidu [Spider], borgbear, codc10, Duartelmatos, fr738, Google Adsense [Bot], kaneporta1, mig17, Pendennis, pollitt1985, runway23, SeaEagle8, Strato2, TC957, Themotionman, usflyer msp, VolvoBus and 269 guests

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