User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 562
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:01 pm

Boeing 757-200 orders by year
1978 38
1980 64
1981 3
1982 2
1983 26
1984 2
1985 25
1986 12
1987 45
1988 145
1989 155
1990 70
1991 50
1992 35
1993 23
1994 12
1995 8
1996 42 ------------- 418 dead in 41 weeks
1997 43
1998 47
1999 18
2000 31
2001 10
2003 7

A total of 418 fatalities occurred in a 41 week period in three separate accidents involving a B757-200 all in Latin America. In the final analysis there were no problems with the jet itself, but it was a terrible run. Outside of this run of 3 accidents there had been an accident in China in 1990 with 46 fatalities, and subsequently there were two accidents with 2 fatalities and 1 fatality, I am not counting the two B757s that were hijacked on 911..

Do you think that these accidents helped kill the orders for new B757s?

Fatalities
159   20-DEC-1995   Boeing 757-223   N651AA   American Airlines   Buga   Colombia (hit mountain)
189   06-FEB-1996   Boeing 757-225   TC-GEN   Birgenair, op.for Alas Nacionales   near Puerto Plata. (crashed in Atlantic Ocean)
 70   02-OCT-1996   Boeing 757-23A   N52AW   AeroPeru   near Lima, Peru   (crashed in Pacific Ocean)
Last edited by atcsundevil on Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Clickbait title
 
seat24charlie
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:34 am

Re: Over 400 dead in 41 weeks

Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:10 pm

Highly unlikely. The 757 had already proven itself as a safe and efficient aircraft. By '96 it was pushing 20 years old and a new generation of aircraft was making more economical sense to airlines by the end of the 90s with the emergence of the 737NG and the maturing of the A320 series.

If memory serves, those crashes were not put down to flaws in the aircraft itself, particularly when compared with other aircraft series that had been embroiled in design-related issues.
 
boerje
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:16 am

Re: Over 400 dead in 41 weeks

Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:11 pm

So in 1996 there were 42 orders and in following 2 years there were 43 + 47... By these numbers one could say accidents helped in additional orders.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 6038
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:31 pm

Classic confusion of correlation vs. causality.

R.C. Longworth, Tribune Staff Writer
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
The best safety record of any plane in aviation history has ended in the Andes of Colombia.

The crash Wednesday of American Airlines Flight 965 en route from Miami to Cali, Colombia, was the first fatal accident involving a Boeing 757 since that jetliner was introduced, 13 years ago Friday.

Since then, 46 airlines from 20 countries have flown 838 Boeing 757s nearly 10 million miles, according to Boeing Co. Altogether, 564 million passengers have taken off and landed safely in them.

"No other aircraft has gone this long without a fatal accident," said Pat Cariseo, spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board in Washington.


https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct- ... story.html

That record established beyond doubt that 757s were safe.
 
User avatar
flyingphil
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 2:56 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:33 pm

None of those accidents were attributable to the aircraft.
Mix of pilot error and maintenance - from memory a cleaner taped over the pitot tubes on one of them..
The lack of orders killed the 757, although with hindsight Boeing may have been over eager to kill it off.
So the answer is NO.
 
richierich
Posts: 3598
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:34 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
Do you think that these accidents helped kill the orders for new B757s?




No.
None shall pass!!!!
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:51 pm

Were there pre 9/11 orders that were cancelled post 9/11.

Perhaps there is some blame here?
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
Galvan316
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 5:43 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:53 pm

Just think if this type of "logic" was used for Automobile Sales
ORD and MDW is where youll find Me!
 
Elementalism
Posts: 487
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:56 pm

Too much plane for most domestic missions of the time. If the 757 was releases in 89 I think we may have seen a MAX version. Airlines have been up-gauging for the past decade. An ER version of the 757-200 that could get out to 5000nm would be a nice competitor to the A321 XLR.
 
steady eddie
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 6:43 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:07 pm

Short answer, no, as your own figures demonstrate.

Airbus A319 24 years in service, no fatal accidents.
 
OmerMaz
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 8:38 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:13 pm

I think it's one of the very few planes which didn't suffer from "childhood ilness" or design flaw.
On a presonal note, the 757 is my faborite plane, and it's amazing safety record even at an older age is a contirbuting factor.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 562
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:20 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
Classic confusion of correlation vs. causality.
That record established beyond doubt that 757s were safe.


I am not talking about rational behavior. Sales are often unrelated to reality.

There was absolutely no connection between the accidents and the B752 itself, it was just a statistical anomoly that there was not one fatality from a B752 in the air from first delivery on 22. Dec. 1982 until 20. Dec.1995. Then there were three fatal accidents in 41 weeks that took the lives of over 400 people.

I say "in the air" because 46 people died in a B757 awaiting takeoff when it was hit on the ground by a B737 where a fistfight was going on in the cockpit (in China in 1990).
 
RobertS975
Posts: 947
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 2:17 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:44 pm

Aero Peru took off with tape covering the static ports from recent maintenance causing loss of control over the dark ocean. AA hit a mountain on approach to Cali. A I assume the third "South American" 757 accident was the crash after t/o from the Dominican Republic. The Birgenair charter out of POP also appeared to have a pitot system issue most likely due to mud dauber wasps building nests.

So essentially none of the crashes were actually the fault of the aircraft itself.

The answer to the OP's question is an obvious NO.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3927
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:51 pm

Not yet another 757 thread. Most accurately the CFM 56 killed the 757–it offered high bypass fuel efficiency to small gauge airliners. The A321 is more efficient to operate, period. In ‘82, the 757 was an efficiency wunderkind; 15 years later it was gas guzzler.

Put tape or daybeds in the pitot tubes and any plane will require some quick pilot thinking to put things right. It wasn’t the plane in those accidents.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1575
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Wed Oct 23, 2019 3:40 pm

Did the 737 affect 757 sales. The NG first flight was in 97, its performance kicked the 757 out of the market.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 666
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:44 pm

Elementalism wrote:
Too much plane for most domestic missions of the time. If the 757 was releases in 89 I think we may have seen a MAX version. Airlines have been up-gauging for the past decade. An ER version of the 757-200 that could get out to 5000nm would be a nice competitor to the A321 XLR.


Also, Boeing would have been able to utilize the technology of the A320-200, which is still considered state-of-the-art 30 years later.
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...
 
morrisond
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Wed Oct 23, 2019 8:13 pm

1989worstyear wrote:
Elementalism wrote:
Too much plane for most domestic missions of the time. If the 757 was releases in 89 I think we may have seen a MAX version. Airlines have been up-gauging for the past decade. An ER version of the 757-200 that could get out to 5000nm would be a nice competitor to the A321 XLR.


Also, Boeing would have been able to utilize the technology of the A320-200, which is still considered state-of-the-art 30 years later.


What technology from the A320 would have helped the 757.

And what is still considered state of the art on the A320 other than the engines now?

It's wing and Structure are 30+ years old along with most of it's systems. Heck the 737 has a more modern wing. Somehow I think even Airbus would disagree with that statement in respect to how it compares with an A350 in terms of modernity of design.
 
MR27122
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:00 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Wed Oct 23, 2019 8:46 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
Classic confusion of correlation vs. causality.

R.C. Longworth, Tribune Staff Writer
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
The best safety record of any plane in aviation history has ended in the Andes of Colombia.

The crash Wednesday of American Airlines Flight 965 en route from Miami to Cali, Colombia, was the first fatal accident involving a Boeing 757 since that jetliner was introduced, 13 years ago Friday.

Since then, 46 airlines from 20 countries have flown 838 Boeing 757s nearly 10 million miles, according to Boeing Co. Altogether, 564 million passengers have taken off and landed safely in them.

"No other aircraft has gone this long without a fatal accident," said Pat Cariseo, spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board in Washington.


https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct- ... story.html

That record established beyond doubt that 757s were safe.


Jan '76 - Jul '00
Concorde!!
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:59 pm

I think the insane interest rates on financing from the late 70's through about 1988 had a much bigger effect, as well as the glut of available 727's, 737's and widebodies that existed at the time.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3307
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:46 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
Classic confusion of correlation vs. causality.
That record established beyond doubt that 757s were safe.


I am not talking about rational behavior. Sales are often unrelated to reality.

There was absolutely no connection between the accidents and the B752 itself, it was just a statistical anomoly that there was not one fatality from a B752 in the air from first delivery on 22. Dec. 1982 until 20. Dec.1995. Then there were three fatal accidents in 41 weeks that took the lives of over 400 people.

I say "in the air" because 46 people died in a B757 awaiting takeoff when it was hit on the ground by a B737 where a fistfight was going on in the cockpit (in China in 1990).


the fact that sales had dropped to constantly to 8 the year before and went up for a couple years says it was not an issue. Orders by year & deliveries per year are much different. If the list is by orders then no.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 562
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Over 400 dead in 41 weeks

Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:00 am

seat24charlie wrote:
If memory serves, those crashes were not put down to flaws in the aircraft itself, particularly when compared with other aircraft series that had been embroiled in design-related issues.


I posed a question, not a hypothesis.

I reviewed the accident reports before I posted this question, and none of the reasons for the crashes seemed to have anything to do with the aircraft design. The three accidents were caused primarily by an error in the Jeppson database (for which American airlines sued Jeppson), an insect in the pitot tubes, and masking tape left on by the cleaning crew.

I was just curious if anyone remembers a hysteria at the time. Sometimes the final report for an accident is not released for over a year. To go for 13 years without a single fatality from an in air incident, to three terrible crashes in 41 weeks would have gathered some news stories.

rbavfan wrote:
Orders by year & deliveries per year are much different. If the list is by orders then no.


I did the list by "orders" and not by "deliveries" for precisely that reason.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:05 am

It would be interesting to know just how many accidents were avoided because of the 757's superior power to weight ratio. I remember there was an incident many years ago where a Delta 757 was a few seconds from touching down at FLL when a United jet entered the runway right in front of it. The 757 did a breathtaking go around. Had it been any other commercial airliner I think it would have ended in disaster.
 
Zidane
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 2:44 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:21 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
It would be interesting to know just how many accidents were avoided because of the 757's superior power to weight ratio. I remember there was an incident many years ago where a Delta 757 was a few seconds from touching down at FLL when a United jet entered the runway right in front of it. The 757 did a breathtaking go around. Had it been any other commercial airliner I think it would have ended in disaster.

I read that flight AA965 could have climb cleared the mountain with room to spare had the pilots remembered to retract the spoilers.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5480
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:18 am

Zidane wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
It would be interesting to know just how many accidents were avoided because of the 757's superior power to weight ratio. I remember there was an incident many years ago where a Delta 757 was a few seconds from touching down at FLL when a United jet entered the runway right in front of it. The 757 did a breathtaking go around. Had it been any other commercial airliner I think it would have ended in disaster.

I read that flight AA965 could have climb cleared the mountain with room to spare had the pilots remembered to retract the spoilers.

That is true. And as a result of that crash Boeing changed the logic in the spoiler control circuit to automatically retract them if TOGA power was applied. Boeing had not done that because of their philosophy of always leaving the pilot in ultimate control, but in this case it bit them. And nobody could conceive a situation where any rational pilot would want TOGA power and spoilers.
Last edited by SEPilot on Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 562
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:19 am

Zidane wrote:
I read that flight AA965 could have climb cleared the mountain with room to spare had the pilots remembered to retract the spoilers.


I've read that speedbrakes are purely drag devices while spoilers simultaneously increase drag and reduce lift. Is this author using the wrong term?

When the pilots realized that they were near the terrain, they initiated an emergency climb, but neglected to retract the speedbrakes which they had been using to descend. Because the aircraft hit the ridge only a few hundred feet below the summit, speculation was made as to whether the speed brakes should automatically retract when the throttles are pushed up and whether doing so would have saved the aircraft. Some aircraft have this feature while others do not, but highlighting the issue should make pilots aware of the potential problem.
https://www.avgeekery.com/horrific-cras ... ght-safer/
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5480
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:27 am

PacoMartin wrote:
Zidane wrote:
I read that flight AA965 could have climb cleared the mountain with room to spare had the pilots remembered to retract the spoilers.


I've read that speedbrakes are purely drag devices while spoilers simultaneously increase drag and reduce lift. Is this author using the wrong term?

When the pilots realized that they were near the terrain, they initiated an emergency climb, but neglected to retract the speedbrakes which they had been using to descend. Because the aircraft hit the ridge only a few hundred feet below the summit, speculation was made as to whether the speed brakes should automatically retract when the throttles are pushed up and whether doing so would have saved the aircraft. Some aircraft have this feature while others do not, but highlighting the issue should make pilots aware of the potential problem.
https://www.avgeekery.com/horrific-cras ... ght-safer/

Small aircraft often have speed brakes, which are small metal shapes that stick up vertically on the top of the wing perpendicularly. They just add drag. I have never seen them on an airliner, which have spoilers, which are hinged panels on the top of the wing just ahead of the flaps that when raised both disrupt lift and add drag. Whoever said that the accident plane had speed brakes misspoke, I believe.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Max Q
Posts: 7798
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:03 am

SEPilot wrote:
Zidane wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
It would be interesting to know just how many accidents were avoided because of the 757's superior power to weight ratio. I remember there was an incident many years ago where a Delta 757 was a few seconds from touching down at FLL when a United jet entered the runway right in front of it. The 757 did a breathtaking go around. Had it been any other commercial airliner I think it would have ended in disaster.

I read that flight AA965 could have climb cleared the mountain with room to spare had the pilots remembered to retract the spoilers.

That is true. And as a result of that crash Boeing changed the logic in the spoiler control circuit to automatically retract them if TOGA power was applied. Boeing had not done that because of their philosophy of always leaving the pilot in ultimate control, but in this case it bit them. And nobody could conceive a situation where any rational pilot would want TOGA power and spoilers.




That is not true, not correct at all.


No adjustment or modification was made to spoiler retraction logic on the B757 / 767 as a result of the AA accident in Cali


The only scenario where increasing power leads to the spoilers being retracted automatically on these aircraft is when the aircraft is on the ground with weight on wheels


This is to cater for a late go around (balked landing) where a pilot may neglect to stow them manually after the spoilers have deployed
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


Guns are a malignant cancer that are destroying our society
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2474
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:04 am

KlimaBXsst wrote:
Were there pre 9/11 orders that were cancelled post 9/11.

Perhaps there is some blame here?


I know CO cancelled about half of their 757-300 orders after 9/11. They ended up getting ATA's fleet to bring up their 757- 300 fleet up to what it would have been without the cancellations. All of the Rolls Royce engined ex-Continental 757-200's were delivered by 2000. I don't think any more of the 200's were on order. Boeing offered a 757-200ER using parts from the 300 to increase MTOW and allow the 200ER to carry ACT's to increase range. CO rejected the offer.

The 757 was a spent force by the early 2000's. The 737NG and even A320 series had the range to takeover most domestic narrow body flying in the US. Airlines that had 757's started putting them on long range flights only and let cheaper, lighter, and more efficient narrow bodies take over the other routes. When you consider that the 737-900ER has more than enough range to fly US transcons, there wasn't much point in adding more 757's. CO converted it's entire fleet to transatlantic service on thin routes. UA converted many of its 757's to their PS standard, and put them on premium transcons routes while getting rid of the old 767-200's. The 757 is too heavy even if it were reengined. Whatever is built to replace it on long, thin routes will be lighter and have more efficient engines.
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2608
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:49 am

Im going with the market theory. The big chunk of US airlines that had relatively new 757s, which
obviously didn't need replacement, and the Euro carriers relying on A310s which did need replacement
with increased oil prices and at least for A310-200 routes, the A321 pretty much did most of the same
stuff pax wise but cheaper to operate. At the time Asian markets weren't as developed and very much
had a "wide body only" mindset and a lot of LCC were entering the market and the 737 was their jet of
choice. It's a pity if it just hang on a bit longer, maybe got a new wing and newer engines, I think
it goes without saying the thing would have been successful.
 
Max Q
Posts: 7798
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:37 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
Were there pre 9/11 orders that were cancelled post 9/11.

Perhaps there is some blame here?


I know CO cancelled about half of their 757-300 orders after 9/11. They ended up getting ATA's fleet to bring up their 757- 300 fleet up to what it would have been without the cancellations. All of the Rolls Royce engined ex-Continental 757-200's were delivered by 2000. I don't think any more of the 200's were on order. Boeing offered a 757-200ER using parts from the 300 to increase MTOW and allow the 200ER to carry ACT's to increase range. CO rejected the offer.

The 757 was a spent force by the early 2000's. The 737NG and even A320 series had the range to takeover most domestic narrow body flying in the US. Airlines that had 757's started putting them on long range flights only and let cheaper, lighter, and more efficient narrow bodies take over the other routes. When you consider that the 737-900ER has more than enough range to fly US transcons, there wasn't much point in adding more 757's. CO converted it's entire fleet to transatlantic service on thin routes. UA converted many of its 757's to their PS standard, and put them on premium transcons routes while getting rid of the old 767-200's. The 757 is too heavy even if it were reengined. Whatever is built to replace it on long, thin routes will be lighter and have more efficient engines.




Continental had an extensive transatlantic network with the 752 but they have continued to use it domestically throughout their route system up until and after the merger
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


Guns are a malignant cancer that are destroying our society
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:49 am

Max Q wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
Were there pre 9/11 orders that were cancelled post 9/11.

Perhaps there is some blame here?


I know CO cancelled about half of their 757-300 orders after 9/11. They ended up getting ATA's fleet to bring up their 757- 300 fleet up to what it would have been without the cancellations. All of the Rolls Royce engined ex-Continental 757-200's were delivered by 2000. I don't think any more of the 200's were on order. Boeing offered a 757-200ER using parts from the 300 to increase MTOW and allow the 200ER to carry ACT's to increase range. CO rejected the offer.

The 757 was a spent force by the early 2000's. The 737NG and even A320 series had the range to takeover most domestic narrow body flying in the US. Airlines that had 757's started putting them on long range flights only and let cheaper, lighter, and more efficient narrow bodies take over the other routes. When you consider that the 737-900ER has more than enough range to fly US transcons, there wasn't much point in adding more 757's. CO converted it's entire fleet to transatlantic service on thin routes. UA converted many of its 757's to their PS standard, and put them on premium transcons routes while getting rid of the old 767-200's. The 757 is too heavy even if it were reengined. Whatever is built to replace it on long, thin routes will be lighter and have more efficient engines.




Continental had an extensive transatlantic network with the 752 but they have continued to use it domestically throughout their route system up until and after the merger


CO would usually have one RON at FLL. I always noticed it because you had such a good view of their gates going into and out of the airport. The CO scheme looked excellent on the 752.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 562
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:21 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Not yet another 757 thread.

I hadn't seen one that discussed the extraordinary poor luck of having 3 hull losses in Latin America within 41 weeks with 418 fatalities and only 4 survivors. I realize that the jet design was not considered relevant in any of these accidents.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Most accurately the CFM 56 killed the 757–it offered high bypass fuel efficiency to small gauge airliners. The A321 is more efficient to operate, period. In ‘82, the 757 was an efficiency wunderkind; 15 years later it was gas guzzler.

I won't argue with that, except that the stretched version of the B757 did offer competitive fuel burn to the A321 with a capacity of the earliest B767-200 first delivered in 1982. The maiden flight of the Airbus A321 came on 11 March 1993, while the first flight of the B753 was on 2 Aug 1998 (over 5 years later).

I have always been amazed that the B753 sold so poorly, particularly as all 55 airframes produced seem to be considered such reliable assets today. The strongest opinion on those poor sales was that they would have been much stronger had the program begun around the same time as the A321 program began. In 1993 orders for the B752 were slacking off.
-------------------------------------------------------

Fuel Burn
180 Airbus A321-200 1996 (94 mpg‑US) per seat
243 Boeing 757-300 1998 (98 mpg‑US) per seat

A321 deliveries
1994 16
1995 22
1996 16

B753 orders
12 09. Dec. 1996 Condor Flugdienst
1 16. Jun. 1997 Icelandair
1 31. May. 1998 Condor Flugdienst
2 31. Jul. 1998 Arkia Israeli Airlines
2 03. May. 2000 Thomas Cook Airlines
10 30. Jun. 2000 ATA Airlines, Inc.
9 02. Jan. 2001 United Airlines
16 16. Jan. 2001 Northwest Airlines
2 31. Dec. 2001 ATA Airlines, Inc.
55 total orders
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 562
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:54 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
B753 orders
12 09. Dec. 1996 Condor Flugdienst
1 16. Jun. 1997 Icelandair
1 31. May. 1998 Condor Flugdienst
2 31. Jul. 1998 Arkia Israeli Airlines
2 03. May. 2000 Thomas Cook Airlines
10 30. Jun. 2000 ATA Airlines, Inc.
9 02. Jan. 2001 United Airlines
16 16. Jan. 2001 Northwest Airlines
2 31. Dec. 2001 ATA Airlines, Inc.
55 total orders


The 12 B753s that were delivered to ATA are now owned and operated by United bringing their total to 21. Obviously, the 16 that went to Northwest are now owned by Delta. Arkia sold one to Icelandair and is probably going to retire the other one when they get an A321XLR. Condor has all 15 including the 2 that went to their parent company Thomas Cook, but they may be sold given the bankruptcy.

The B753 trades up to 13% in maximum range compared to the B752, in exchange for up to 23% more seating capacity.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2474
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:09 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
B753 orders
12 09. Dec. 1996 Condor Flugdienst
1 16. Jun. 1997 Icelandair
1 31. May. 1998 Condor Flugdienst
2 31. Jul. 1998 Arkia Israeli Airlines
2 03. May. 2000 Thomas Cook Airlines
10 30. Jun. 2000 ATA Airlines, Inc.
9 02. Jan. 2001 United Airlines
16 16. Jan. 2001 Northwest Airlines
2 31. Dec. 2001 ATA Airlines, Inc.
55 total orders


The 12 B753s that were delivered to ATA are now owned and operated by United bringing their total to 21. Obviously, the 16 that went to Northwest are now owned by Delta. Arkia sold one to Icelandair and is probably going to retire the other one when they get an A321XLR. Condor has all 15 including the 2 that went to their parent company Thomas Cook, but they may be sold given the bankruptcy.

The B753 trades up to 13% in maximum range compared to the B752, in exchange for up to 23% more seating capacity.


I wonder if UA will pursue the Condor 753 fleet. Considering the continuing delays in returning the 737 MAX to service, they could booster the US fleet and free up 73G's, 738's, and 739's for other routes.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26430
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:21 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
I have always been amazed that the B753 sold so poorly, particularly as all 55 airframes produced seem to be considered such reliable assets today.


General opinion is the low(er) range and long(er) turnaround times hampered the desirability of the frames. 9/11 seriously hampered interest in it for the USA and the Asian Financial Crisis and SARS did the same for SE Asia so Boeing felt the production space would be better utilized making 737NGs (and they were correct).
 
MR27122
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:00 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:39 pm

767 had approx 9yrs of zero fatalities

-="The 767 entered service with United Airlines on September 8, 1982"
-="26 May 1991; Lauda Air 767-300ER"
Excluding "23 November 1996; Ethiopian Airlines 767-200ER" AND "31 October 1999; EgyptAir 767-300ER" ....AND 9/11...the next fatality was
-="15 April 2002; Air China 767-300ER"

Source: Airsafe.com

Recollection is that by pure happenstance---the Lauda Air & Egypt Air 767's came off prod line one after the other.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:59 am

So apparently

United was the only airline to cancel 757 orders of all types after 9/11.
ATA never got the chance to order more 757-300s

American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, and US Airways all had moved on and did NOT need top offs or the fleet commonality and common pilot type ratings with the 767 and did not even have further options for 757s that were not exercised.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3927
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Fri Oct 25, 2019 4:43 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
It would be interesting to know just how many accidents were avoided because of the 757's superior power to weight ratio. I remember there was an incident many years ago where a Delta 757 was a few seconds from touching down at FLL when a United jet entered the runway right in front of it. The 757 did a breathtaking go around. Had it been any other commercial airliner I think it would have ended in disaster.


A balked landing is a standard procedure and doesn’t require some magical amount of thrust. I seen an L-1011 go from the flare at JFK, done several balked landings, in the plane and the sim, in the C-5 and it was rather underpowered. If it can take-off, a plane can go from 25’.

Technically correct on the difference between spoilers and speedbrakes, but semantics—if you’re using them to control speed even if the speed is caused by pitch—it’s a either. If they’re used to roll the plane or kill lift to provide better braking, they’re spoilers. Brits used to call airbrakes.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1666
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Fri Oct 25, 2019 5:38 am

The 757 had out of date engines with a bypass ratio of 4.4:1 on the RB211's. In the 90's that was the lowest bypass ratio of any western airliner. It was overdue for a NEO. The 737NG had engines were a full generation ahead.

If we look at the 737 it got new generation engines every 15 years. The classic, NG and MAX approx 15 years apart.

The A320NEO came 25 years after the original, but it did get an extra half of a generation engine improvements in the late 90's that came from the 7B engines on the 737NG.

The 757 pretty much got nothing except I think a 1% PIP. The core in the Trent 500 in the mid 90's was a big step up from the 80's tech RB211 for example. Bypass ratio went up from 4.4:1 to a massive 7.6:1 in the Trent 500. The GE90 for example had a bypass ratio of 8.4:1 in the late 90's.

The 757 had excellent ground clearance to allow higher bypass ratio engines. Following the 737's 15 year NEO rule Boeing could have done a 757NEO launch in 1998 and that would have had a surge of sales to sustain production through the crisis.

The range would have got a big boost. Easy 4500nm would have kept it a class above the A321 and 737.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 562
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Fri Oct 25, 2019 6:55 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The 757 had out of date engines with a bypass ratio of 4.4:1 on the RB211's. In the 90's that was the lowest bypass ratio of any western airliner. It was overdue for a NEO. The 737NG had engines were a full generation ahead.

If we look at the 737 it got new generation engines every 15 years. The classic, NG and MAX approx 15 years apart.


Specifically it was
16.9 years from the delivery of the original B737 to the first classic
13.1 years from the delivery of the first classic to the first NG B737
19.4 years from the delivery of the first NG to the first MAX

16.3 years from the delivery of the first B752 to the first B753 (which was a stretch and not a new engine)
22.3 years from the delivery of the first B752 to the last B752

So by that simple comparison, the B752 did really last a long time for no new engine.

In comparison the 767-300ER had 26.5 years between the first and last delivery. Boeing executives seemed much more forgiving of weak order years near the end than they were for the 752.
767-300ER orders
1987 38
1988 61
1989 74
1990 36
1991 51
1992 20
1993 8
1994 15
1995 18
1996 38
1997 39
1998 28
1999 28
2000 4
2001 37
2002 3
2003 10
2004 3
2005 14
2006 10
2007 3
2008 23
2009 7
2010 1
2011 11
2012 3
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 666
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Fri Oct 25, 2019 7:07 am

PacoMartin wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
The 757 had out of date engines with a bypass ratio of 4.4:1 on the RB211's. In the 90's that was the lowest bypass ratio of any western airliner. It was overdue for a NEO. The 737NG had engines were a full generation ahead.

If we look at the 737 it got new generation engines every 15 years. The classic, NG and MAX approx 15 years apart.


Specifically it was
16.9 years from the delivery of the original B737 to the first classic
13.1 years from the delivery of the first classic to the first NG B737
19.4 years from the delivery of the first NG to the first MAX

16.3 years from the delivery of the first B752 to the first B753 (which was a stretch and not a new engine)
22.3 years from the delivery of the first B752 to the last B752

So by that simple comparison, the B752 did really last a long time for no new engine.

In comparison the 767-300ER had 26.5 years between the first and last delivery. Boeing executives seemed much more forgiving of weak order years near the end than they were for the 752.
767-300ER orders
1987 38
1988 61
1989 74
1990 36
1991 51
1992 20
1993 8
1994 15
1995 18
1996 38
1997 39
1998 28
1999 28
2000 4
2001 37
2002 3
2003 10
2004 3
2005 14
2006 10
2007 3
2008 23
2009 7
2010 1
2011 11
2012 3


Second to only the A320 CEO (1988-2014).

Aren't the PW2000's more advanced and have a bypass ratio more in line with the CFM56-5A and early PW4000's?
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...
 
PANAMsterdam
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:45 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Fri Oct 25, 2019 7:21 am

The Air Crash Investigation of AeroPeru Flight 603 is still the scariest ever, with that cockpit going crazy and all those conflicting errors at the same time. They received Overspeed, Stall and Terrain alarms at the same time, while their instruments said they were flying at 20.000ft or something.
Come fly with me, let's fly, let's fly away!
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2474
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Fri Oct 25, 2019 7:28 am

PacoMartin wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
The 757 had out of date engines with a bypass ratio of 4.4:1 on the RB211's. In the 90's that was the lowest bypass ratio of any western airliner. It was overdue for a NEO. The 737NG had engines were a full generation ahead.

If we look at the 737 it got new generation engines every 15 years. The classic, NG and MAX approx 15 years apart.


Specifically it was
16.9 years from the delivery of the original B737 to the first classic
13.1 years from the delivery of the first classic to the first NG B737
19.4 years from the delivery of the first NG to the first MAX

16.3 years from the delivery of the first B752 to the first B753 (which was a stretch and not a new engine)
22.3 years from the delivery of the first B752 to the last B752

So by that simple comparison, the B752 did really last a long time for no new engine.

In comparison the 767-300ER had 26.5 years between the first and last delivery. Boeing executives seemed much more forgiving of weak order years near the end than they were for the 752.
767-300ER orders
1987 38
1988 61
1989 74
1990 36
1991 51
1992 20
1993 8
1994 15
1995 18
1996 38
1997 39
1998 28
1999 28
2000 4
2001 37
2002 3
2003 10
2004 3
2005 14
2006 10
2007 3
2008 23
2009 7
2010 1
2011 11
2012 3


Well Boeing was planning on offering a replacement for the KC-135 based on the 767 to keep the 767 line busy. They also had the potential for 767 freighters. The 757 line always had the potential of being fairly easy to convert into a 737 line. If 757 orders didn't pick up, Boeing could end the program, convert the line, and increase the production rate for the 737.
 
slcguy
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:09 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Fri Oct 25, 2019 7:44 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The 757 had out of date engines with a bypass ratio of 4.4:1 on the RB211's. In the 90's that was the lowest bypass ratio of any western airliner. It was overdue for a NEO. The 737NG had engines were a full generation ahead.

If we look at the 737 it got new generation engines every 15 years. The classic, NG and MAX approx 15 years apart.

The A320NEO came 25 years after the original, but it did get an extra half of a generation engine improvements in the late 90's that came from the 7B engines on the 737NG.

The 757 pretty much got nothing except I think a 1% PIP. The core in the Trent 500 in the mid 90's was a big step up from the 80's tech RB211 for example. Bypass ratio went up from 4.4:1 to a massive 7.6:1 in the Trent 500. The GE90 for example had a bypass ratio of 8.4:1 in the late 90's.

The 757 had excellent ground clearance to allow higher bypass ratio engines. Following the 737's 15 year NEO rule Boeing could have done a 757NEO launch in 1998 and that would have had a surge of sales to sustain production through the crisis.

The range would have got a big boost. Easy 4500nm would have kept it a class above the A321 and 737.


The RB211s on the 757 were a smaller fan version of the original 1970s RB211. 757s were also available with a 1980s design engine in the PW2000 series which had a bypass ratio of 6.0:1. Looking at performance charts, at similar weights and loads the PW birds tend to have 200-300 miles longer range than RB211 aircraft while having the same fuel capacity.
 
Max Q
Posts: 7798
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Fri Oct 25, 2019 8:07 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The 757 had out of date engines with a bypass ratio of 4.4:1 on the RB211's. In the 90's that was the lowest bypass ratio of any western airliner. It was overdue for a NEO. The 737NG had engines were a full generation ahead.

If we look at the 737 it got new generation engines every 15 years. The classic, NG and MAX approx 15 years apart.

The A320NEO came 25 years after the original, but it did get an extra half of a generation engine improvements in the late 90's that came from the 7B engines on the 737NG.

The 757 pretty much got nothing except I think a 1% PIP. The core in the Trent 500 in the mid 90's was a big step up from the 80's tech RB211 for example. Bypass ratio went up from 4.4:1 to a massive 7.6:1 in the Trent 500. The GE90 for example had a bypass ratio of 8.4:1 in the late 90's.

The 757 had excellent ground clearance to allow higher bypass ratio engines. Following the 737's 15 year NEO rule Boeing could have done a 757NEO launch in 1998 and that would have had a surge of sales to sustain production through the crisis.

The range would have got a big boost. Easy 4500nm would have kept it a class above the A321 and 737.



Well said, 752 range could have been extended to 5000NM and the -300 series would have been given transatlantic range with a decent engine upgrade in addition to the 2000 Gallon stabilizer tank that was planned for an NG version, it also included the flight deck displays from the 764 (this was flight tested in a 757) and would have been an outstanding aircraft



It would still be in production today with a third update at least by now


Shutting down 757 production was and still is Boeing’s biggest mistake in the history of their commercial aircraft business


Like most of the -7 series it was built with growth and ‘upgradability’ in mind, it was a uniquely capable basic platform that was allowed to wither and die


Furthermore an updated 757 would have allowed Boeing to spend development money on a clean sheet 737 replacement which is decades overdue


There would have been no need for a ‘Max’ with all its compromises and fatal design errors


A new 797 narrowbody family would be destroying the A320 series and there’d be no need for the ‘NMA’ as updated versions of the 757 and 767 would still be highly competitive
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


Guns are a malignant cancer that are destroying our society
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26430
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Fri Oct 25, 2019 1:32 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
Boeing executives seemed much more forgiving of weak order years (for the 763ER) near the end than they were for the 752.


Because Boeing was still seeing decent sales of the 767-300F and they had the KC-46A contract on the way.


Max Q wrote:
Well said, 752 range could have been extended to 5000NM and the -300 series would have been given transatlantic range with a decent engine upgrade in addition to the 2000 Gallon stabilizer tank that was planned for an NG version, it also included the flight deck displays from the 764 (this was flight tested in a 757) and would have been an outstanding aircraft. It would still be in production today with a third update at least by now.


I am very skeptical this would have been the case:

The main reasons UA, DL, CO and AA sent their 757s transatlantic was because:
a) they were fully paid for;
b) they needed to do something with them;
c) the LCCs with 737s and A320s could not follow them to compete so they could charge high enough fares to offset the high CASM.

They were very unlikely to be interested in new 757-200s with better engines because the majority of their TATL traffic then - as it remains today - is carried by widebodies. And this is the same today for the handful of major EU carriers (like BA) who operated the type. And SE Asian airlines, which were the second-largest buyer of the type, were using them on regional missions so they didn't need the range the frame had already, much less more.


Max Q wrote:
Shutting down 757 production was and still is Boeing’s biggest mistake in the history of their commercial aircraft business.


They shut down a program that averaged four deliveries per month to support a program that averages over a dozen times that number of deliveries per month.

The mistake was not doing it sooner, frankly.


Max Q wrote:
Furthermore an updated 757 would have allowed Boeing to spend development money on a clean sheet 737 replacement which is decades overdue. There would have been no need for a ‘Max’ with all its compromises and fatal design errors.


While the A321-200 has become the most popular model of the family when "neo'd", at the time of launch the balance was still strongly favoring the A320-200 model. A 757-200neo was not going to play well against that - and based on an analysis by Leeham.net in 2015, it would not have played well against the A321-200neo, as well.

Boeing had to do MAX because if they did not, they were going to lose thousands of orders and dozens, if not scores, of customers. Orders and customers they would not win back when the NSA was ready years later.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 562
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:04 pm

Stitch wrote:
Boeing had to do MAX because if they did not, they were going to lose thousands of orders and dozens, if not scores, of customers. Orders and customers they would not win back when the NSA was ready years later.



When the first A320 was delivered on 28 March 1988 Boeing still had 6 B737-200 unfilled and had delivered 383 B737-300s. The FBW A320 had a 190 seat FAA exit limit and a 3300 nmi maximum range with a fuel capacity of 24,210 Liters, while the B737-300 had a 149 seat FAA exit limit and a 2,255 nmi maximum range with a fuel capacity of 20,100 Liters.

Boeing would go on to deliver 1600 more classic B737s and then begin the Next Generation Deliveries 3.9 years after the first A321 was delivered.

It's pretty fair to say that Airbus has been driving the train for 30 years on the single-aisle market in terms of innovation.

But I honestly think that it doesn't really bother Boeing all that much, as long as they are maintaining roughly half of sales and they are maintaining the technical and sales lead on widebodies.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 562
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Fri Oct 25, 2019 10:23 pm

One of the ways I like to think about a model is to calculate the Operating empty weight per seat. If I am paying for a lot more weight per seat, what benefits am I getting? The usual answer is range. but sometimes American Airlines uses their A330 on short ranges like PHL to CLT (< 500 miles), so in that case they want capacity between two of their hubs.

The A220s have relatively high empty weight per seat. The B757-300 has a very low empty weight per seat for a jet that had such terrible sales.

The A321neo is such a low empty weight per seat that it would be truly remarkable if Boeing's NMA can approach it. Since the circulated specs for the NMA do not offer much range over the A321XLR or even capacity, it is not clear why airlines will flock to it.

OEW kg /   Limi t = Kg/seat:   Model
 44,677   /   220   =   203   :   B737-900ER
 50,100   /   240   =   209   :   A321neo
 64,340   /   295   =   218   :   B757-300 ----------------]
 41,413   /   189   =   219   :   B737-800
 45,070   /   200   =   225   :   MAX-200
 44,300   /   195   =   227   :   A320neo
 37,081   /   160   =   232   :   A220-300
 58,440   /   239   =   245   :   B757-200
 37,648   /   149   =   253   :   B737-700
 90,011   /   351   =   256   :   B767-300ER
 35,221   /   135   =   261   :   A220-100
 42,600   /   160   =   266   :   A319neo
103,872   /   375   =   277   :   B767-400ER
 82,377   /   290   =   284   :   B767-200ER
129,400   /   440   =   294   :   A300-300
120,600   /   406   =   297   :   A300-200
137,000   /   460   =   298   :   A300-900neo
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1666
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Fri Oct 25, 2019 11:03 pm

Stitch wrote:
Boeing had to do MAX because if they did not, they were going to lose thousands of orders and dozens, if not scores, of customers. Orders and customers they would not win back when the NSA was ready years later.

Boeing indeed would have lost massive orders to Airbus if they did not do the MAX. Airbus would have had engines more than a full generation ahead of Boeing. Sales would have slowed for the 737 as it would be using out of date engines.

This is the same argument that can be used to explain why the 757 sales slowed. The A320 and 737 both got new engine tech around the same time as the 757 sales slowed. You can see the 757 sales drop in 1994 and 1995 once the 737NG and the A321 launched.

When the 757 outsold both the 737 and A320 in 1988/89, airlines were happy to pay for the extra fuselage weight as it had more than 1000nm extra range. With equal engine tech the 757 would have maintained a 1000nm range advantage over the A321 and 737. The 757NG in the late 90's would have opened many of the routes that the 787-8 opened 10 years later.

Following the same 15-17 year engine cycle of the 737 family the 757MAX would probably be entering service now and would be the MOM with 5500+nm range.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 666
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Did accidents affect 757 sales?

Fri Oct 25, 2019 11:13 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Boeing had to do MAX because if they did not, they were going to lose thousands of orders and dozens, if not scores, of customers. Orders and customers they would not win back when the NSA was ready years later.



When the first A320 was delivered on 28 March 1988 Boeing still had 6 B737-200 unfilled and had delivered 383 B737-300s. The FBW A320 had a 190 seat FAA exit limit and a 3300 nmi maximum range with a fuel capacity of 24,210 Liters, while the B737-300 had a 149 seat FAA exit limit and a 2,255 nmi maximum range with a fuel capacity of 20,100 Liters.

Boeing would go on to deliver 1600 more classic B737s and then begin the Next Generation Deliveries 3.9 years after the first A321 was delivered.

It's pretty fair to say that Airbus has been driving the train for 30 years on the single-aisle market in terms of innovation.

But I honestly think that it doesn't really bother Boeing all that much, as long as they are maintaining roughly half of sales and they are maintaining the technical and sales lead on widebodies.


...and it's sad the current variant is 95% parts-identical to the 30 year old one. The last three decades have been pretty lean when it comes to NB innovation from both A and (especially) B.
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...

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