Mightyflyer86 wrote:Checklist787 wrote:keesje wrote:
A321 first flight was 1993, 757: 1982.
So if the A321 is from 1993 then we will consider that the 757-300 and 737NG's are from 1999?
Be serious Keesje...keesje wrote:The 757 weighs 10t (~100 passengers) more than a A321.
Who wants to pay the fuel for flying 10t dead metal around, for decades?
The 757 maintenance program / costs looks more like a 767 than a 737. Also the engines.
I have nothing against the 757, it just became just too heavy & expensive for the airlines.
It is paradoxical...
and a huge mistake for Boeing.
1. The 757 was a "hybrid" because it had a 737 fuselage with wings close to the dimensions of the A310. Normal that it is heavy. The 757 was a medium-term IMO solution. So why compare it with the A321 which is a "pure" narrow body?
2. The other weakness and Boeing error is that the 737 did not have enough ground clearance as the 757 until the solution of the landing gear of the 737 MAX 10. We know the story with the 737 Max-8.
Both have different handicapping characteristicskeesje wrote:Designing a NMA, Boeing should watch out not getting too heavy & expensive. Twin aisle oval doesn't sound good in that respect.
Rather, the NMA will be lighter than the A330-200's, 767-400ER's and 787-8's ultimately
It'll be cheap since Boeing studied the feasibility. Why have you been repeating the opposite for years?keesje wrote:Boeing better assume Airbus will do an affordable A322NEO and will put on 3-5% enhanced engines on the NEO's after 2025.
For some passengers the A322-X concept would be a hell of boarding and disembarking...
Are you calling a program that sold 1,050 units a mistake???
1) The 757 is no hybrid, it is a narrowbody. It was designed in the late 1970s to replace a three engined airplane (727).
2) The 727 was a short to medium haul airplane that had excellent runway performance so the 757 had to match it which is why it has a lot of wing surface area and powerful 1970s engines.
3) The 757 was an ultra efficient narrowbody by 1980s standards since it replaced a three engined airplane.
4) Both the 737NG and the A320 can fly the majority of the 757 routes with a lot less weight.
5) The 737NG and A320 are responsible for the 757's demise which is why Boeing stopped production in 2004.
6) One of the few reasons the 757 has been able to live a long life is because it is capable of flying short TATL routes which Continental Airlines started in 2007/2008.
7) The A321neo has been able to match the 757s range with a lot less weight so the 757 has become "heavy" by modern standards
8) The 757 is a great airplane, it has become obsolete because, after all, it's an airplane with technology from the 1970s.
I think these days for a NB aircraft a 1000 run would be considered marginal. But we are talking 2020, not 1980
In my opinion the A321XLR MTOW bump and related modifications are an indication an A322NEO is on the table. Which would be very attractive for Delta domestic operations. (And maybe an 200 seater, the A320 seems hard to stretch)..