Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Boeing757100
Topic Author
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed May 06, 2020 10:09 pm

Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:42 pm

Many times here, the most discussed 727 replacements come down to 3 core options

Mcdonnell Douglas- MD90
Boeing- 737 NG
Airbus- A320CEO

However, most Boeing officials still said that back then, the 757 was the 727 replacement. I, among others, heavily doubt this, because the 757 has much greater range, capacity, and MTOW. I think the 757 was successful for not replacing the 727, but for the fact that it is a CASM monster, a high performer, and also the fact that it took up till 2019 (with the 321XLR launch) for airlines to find a replacement. And in my opinion, even that can't fill the top, top niche of the 757.

Anyways, does anyone know why Boeing would say this?
 
inAjet
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 5:37 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:45 pm

When the 757 was announced, the 737 NG was not yet in existence, MD was still the competition, and so was Airbus. So, from the standpoint of Boeing’s lineup at the time, the 757 was the 727 replacement - albeit with far greater capability.
 
User avatar
Boeing757100
Topic Author
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed May 06, 2020 10:09 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:53 pm

inAjet wrote:
When the 757 was announced, the 737 NG was not yet in existence, MD was still the competition, and so was Airbus. So, from the standpoint of Boeing’s lineup at the time, the 757 was the 727 replacement - albeit with far greater capability.



But during the late '90s, when both 757 and 737ng production were in full swing, didn't only the airlines believe the 737 was the real replacement? I thought Boeing still believed the 757 was the replacement.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10633
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:53 pm

The 757 program began development as Boeing’s 727 replacement. Like all aircraft development, it’s specs morphed following airline feedback. Boeing still continued it to market as a 727 replacement, even if it was larger with more range, because hey at that point the 727 was one of the most successful narrowbodies out there. Obviously Boeing wanted 727 customers to become 757 customers.

Boeing757100 wrote:
inAjet wrote:
When the 757 was announced, the 737 NG was not yet in existence, MD was still the competition, and so was Airbus. So, from the standpoint of Boeing’s lineup at the time, the 757 was the 727 replacement - albeit with far greater capability.



But during the late '90s, when both 757 and 737ng production were in full swing, didn't only the airlines believe the 737 was the real replacement? I thought Boeing still believed the 757 was the replacement.

Boeing (or really any manufacturer) doesn’t really care what is actually X’s replacement, as long as it something in their lineup and not a competitor’s. By marketing the 757 as a 727 replacement in the late 90s (when airlines were dumping 722s) they could market the 737NG as a 737 Jurassic replacement when airlines were starting to get rid of their 732s. The fact that airlines mostly viewed the 738 as a 722 replacement was in reality no issue for Boeing.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24323
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:59 pm

757 was going to be more closer to a straight 727 replacement, but the launch customers EA and BA convinced them to add more capabilities. For instance EA wanted to get a larger number of passengers off the short runways at LGA and still have range to do Florida runs. Read the 757 wikipedia page for more info.

It's one of the great aviation what-ifs, because once A320ceo came out it was the best 1-1 replacement for 727. Boeing had to lose a few important orders before they realized they really needed something like 737-800. We'll never know "what if" Boeing made the 757 a true 727 replacement and didn't leave a nice market gap for Airbus to fill.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2342
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sat Aug 01, 2020 6:51 pm

Boeing757100 wrote:
the fact that it took up till 2019 (with the 321XLR launch) for airlines to find a replacement.


Interesting that airlines managed to retire 65% of the world’s passenger 757 fleet before they found a replacement.
I was raised by a cup of coffee.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14474
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:06 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
Boeing757100 wrote:
the fact that it took up till 2019 (with the 321XLR launch) for airlines to find a replacement.


Interesting that airlines managed to retire 65% of the world’s passenger 757 fleet before they found a replacement.


Remember that in the States, the 752 did a ton of “trunk route” flying that neither needed nor took advantage of its capabilities except insofar as the climbouts were fun. The 739 or 321CEO is a perfectly fine 752 replacement on SFO-DEN, STL-DFW, or ATL-JAX.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
LHA320
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:57 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:40 pm

Boeing757100 wrote:
Many times here, the most discussed 727 replacements come down to 3 core options

Mcdonnell Douglas- MD90
Boeing- 737 NG
Airbus- A320CEO

However, most Boeing officials still said that back then, the 757 was the 727 replacement. I, among others, heavily doubt this, because the 757 has much greater range, capacity, and MTOW. I think the 757 was successful for not replacing the 727, but for the fact that it is a CASM monster, a high performer, and also the fact that it took up till 2019 (with the 321XLR launch) for airlines to find a replacement. And in my opinion, even that can't fill the top, top niche of the 757.

Anyways, does anyone know why Boeing would say this?


The 757-100 (like your username) would have been the ultimate 727-200 replacement as it was planned to be a bit smaller than the 752 with less range iirc. No airline was interested in that version, so Boeing never went forward to develop it
AB6 - A319 - A320 - A321 - A333 - A388 - AT42 - 733 - 734 - 735 - 73H - 738 - 752 - 753 - 763 - 772 - DC10 - MD83
 
bigb
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:28 pm

Boeing757100 wrote:
Many times here, the most discussed 727 replacements come down to 3 core options

Mcdonnell Douglas- MD90
Boeing- 737 NG
Airbus- A320CEO

However, most Boeing officials still said that back then, the 757 was the 727 replacement. I, among others, heavily doubt this, because the 757 has much greater range, capacity, and MTOW. I think the 757 was successful for not replacing the 727, but for the fact that it is a CASM monster, a high performer, and also the fact that it took up till 2019 (with the 321XLR launch) for airlines to find a replacement. And in my opinion, even that can't fill the top, top niche of the 757.

Anyways, does anyone know why Boeing would say this?


Because the 757 was originally designed to be the 727 replacement.

Remember, the 727 replacement development started in the late 70s. There was no A320 series aircraft on the drawing board yet. The only 737 available was the 737-200s at the time. 737-300,400,500s weren’t on the drawing birds yet either. The MD-80 series was also pitched to be the 727 replacement as well.

So to answer your question, the 757 was originally designed to be the 727 replacement.
 
User avatar
FlyCaledonian
Posts: 1981
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 6:18 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:57 pm

Boeing757100 wrote:
Many times here, the most discussed 727 replacements come down to 3 core options

Mcdonnell Douglas- MD90
Boeing- 737 NG
Airbus- A320CEO

However, most Boeing officials still said that back then, the 757 was the 727 replacement. I, among others, heavily doubt this, because the 757 has much greater range, capacity, and MTOW. I think the 757 was successful for not replacing the 727, but for the fact that it is a CASM monster, a high performer, and also the fact that it took up till 2019 (with the 321XLR launch) for airlines to find a replacement. And in my opinion, even that can't fill the top, top niche of the 757.

Anyways, does anyone know why Boeing would say this?

Think about it, when the 757-200 (and 767-200) came out Boeing's offering to customers was:
  • 727-200 ADV
  • 737-200 ADV
  • 747-100
  • 747-200B
  • 747SP

The 757-200 gave Boeing a large new generation narrowbody to replace the 727-200 - they recognised they needed a twin to stay competitive.

The 767-200 gave them a small widebody for routes where the L1011 TriStar or DC-10 were too big - the early 767 customers were were AA, DL, TW and UA in the US plus AC in Canada where their original purchases were for domestic trunk routes (ETOPS was not yet a thing).

The 757 and 767 had a common flightdeck, which is one of the reasons the 757 ended up with its distinctive nose rather than a 707/727/737 style one (even if the passenger cabin was the same width as the other narrowbodies).
Let's Go British Caledonian!
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:18 pm

You seem to be missing on the timeline. 757 came about a decade and a half before the 737NG, and was clearly intended as the 727 replacement. That not every airline used it as such, particularly in light of its increased capability, does not alter Boeing's intent upon introduction.


hOMSaR wrote:
Boeing757100 wrote:
the fact that it took up till 2019 (with the 321XLR launch) for airlines to find a replacement.

Interesting that airlines managed to retire 65% of the world’s passenger 757 fleet before they found a replacement.

This again? For the umpteenth trillionth time in AvGeek annals: an aircraft does not have to be a 1-to-1 replacement in size/range/capability in order to constitute a replacement.

Nearly every airline that had them replaced 747s with smaller and longer ranged 777s.
Those that didn't, went with even smaller and longer ranged 787s and A350s.

Nearly every airline that had them replaced 757s with smaller and shorter ranged 737s and A32X.
Those that didn't, are going with smaller and longer ranged A32X.

Pretty straightforward really.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
texl1649
Posts: 1350
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:27 pm

I’d read at some point that the designer had noted that each 757 had ‘as it’s beating heart a 727’ since the whole design essentially progressed from the 727. The design study evolved from what to do with the 727 next, and basically...mutated into the 757. All commercial airliners are essentially designed around/based on what the power plants of that generation enable; the 757 clearly was built around a new generation of high bypass fans.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24323
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:36 pm

FlyCaledonian wrote:
Think about it, when the 757-200 (and 767-200) came out Boeing's offering to customers was:
  • 727-200 ADV
  • 737-200 ADV
  • 747-100
  • 747-200B
  • 747SP

True, but I'll point out:

The then-named 7N7, a twinjet successor for the 727 (a trijet), received its first orders in August 1978. The prototype completed its maiden flight on February 19, 1982 and it was FAA certified on December 21, 1982. Eastern Air Lines placed the original 757-200 in commercial service on January 1, 1983.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757

Launched in 1980 and introduced in 1984, the 737 Classic -300/400/500 variants were re-engined with CFM56-3 turbofans and offered 110 to 168 seats.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737

So there really was only a two year gap where the 737 Classic wasn't in the picture, and by the time the 757 had its first flight the 737 Classic was already in development for two years.

Of course there's a big gap between 737 Classic and 757, but Classic did narrow the gap.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
IAmGaroott
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:37 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:47 pm

I read somewhere that the 757 began development as the 727-300. That's why the original 757 design was a T-tail. Boeing then decided to develop it alongside a new mid-range wide body (the 767), so they changed it to a twin engine and the T tail was dropped.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3619
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:59 pm

Boeing757100 wrote:
Many times here, the most discussed 727 replacements come down to 3 core options

Mcdonnell Douglas- MD90
Boeing- 737 NG
Airbus- A320CEO

However, most Boeing officials still said that back then, the 757 was the 727 replacement. I, among others, heavily doubt this, because the 757 has much greater range, capacity, and MTOW. I think the 757 was successful for not replacing the 727, but for the fact that it is a CASM monster, a high performer, and also the fact that it took up till 2019 (with the 321XLR launch) for airlines to find a replacement. And in my opinion, even that can't fill the top, top niche of the 757.

Anyways, does anyone know why Boeing would say this?


Because it was at that time the replacement for the 727-200. The 737-400, MD80 & A320 at the time had issues on TCON routes. The launch customers were Eastern & BA. Eastern used it to replace the 727 with huge reduction in noise and fuel burn with the added advantage of 20+ more seats. Boeing built it specifically to replace the 727-200ADV.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4458
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:03 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
Boeing757100 wrote:
the fact that it took up till 2019 (with the 321XLR launch) for airlines to find a replacement.


Interesting that airlines managed to retire 65% of the world’s passenger 757 fleet before they found a replacement.


Remember that in the States, the 752 did a ton of “trunk route” flying that neither needed nor took advantage of its capabilities except insofar as the climbouts were fun. The 739 or 321CEO is a perfectly fine 752 replacement on SFO-DEN, STL-DFW, or ATL-JAX.


Not to mention the rest of the world, where the 757's range was never really needed in the first place. An original short-ranged A321 was just fine for the European and Asian markets.

It was really just a small handful of 757s that ever utilized the full range potential of the frame.
 
johns624
Posts: 2793
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:32 pm

Here's a different view of the term "replacement". Since the 757 was introduced as the 727 was phased out, maybe Boeing meant that the 757 was the catalog replacement for the 727. In other words, for the jobs that you used the 727 for, now you would order the 757.
For those who said it was too different to be a replacement, LAX772LR gave some downgauge examples but here's an upgauge---most of the early 747s were replacements for 707s and DC8s. They held a lot more people but were used on the same international routes, but with their increased range, didn't need the fuel stops.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3575
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:05 pm

inAjet wrote:
When the 757 was announced, the 737 NG was not yet in existence, MD was still the competition, and so was Airbus. So, from the standpoint of Boeing’s lineup at the time, the 757 was the 727 replacement - albeit with far greater capability.


But when it came time to replace the B722, it would be the B738 that would be the replacement. Delta retired its last B722 in 2003.

In terms of missions, the B752 was optimized for B722 missions, but DL flew the B752 and B722 alongside each other (I suspect that the B721s were long gone). Did DL operate any 737s before buying WA?
 
OSL777FLYER
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 8:11 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:26 pm

As someone stated, when the B757 came, the B737NG did not exist.

Also, the first B757's were not the ER type. They were perfect for the charter carriers in Europe, they could carry a full load from the Nordic countries to the Canary Islands for instance. BA saw the potential for this aircraft on heavy routes within Europe.

In the U.S, they were seen as an excellent choice for the transcontinental travel.

When the ER's came, I remember Continental took a lot of heat for using them on the TATL flights. Comments like "who would want to spend 8 hours in a narrow-body?" were popular. However, when fuel became more expensive, other carriers saw that this is a great aircraft for thinner routes, and DL, UA and US all got on the bandwagon.

I am surprised that Boeing has not come up with a replacement, and just to add to the discussion, do you think they regret closing the B757 line?
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8048
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:13 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
inAjet wrote:
When the 757 was announced, the 737 NG was not yet in existence, MD was still the competition, and so was Airbus. So, from the standpoint of Boeing’s lineup at the time, the 757 was the 727 replacement - albeit with far greater capability.


But when it came time to replace the B722, it would be the B738 that would be the replacement. Delta retired its last B722 in 2003.


Emphasis LAST. DL was replacing 727s long before 2003. DL (not NW) had a first 757 delivery in 1984 if planespotters.net is right.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15100
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:59 am

It’s true, the 757 was never a 727 replacement other than when the 727 was used for field performance.

The 757 was the non-ER replacement for the 707 and the 767 was the TATL/hawaii replacement for the 707. Also competitor to DC10.

The early 727Adv wasn’t ready for replacement for over a decade from 757 EIS, and when Boeing tried to sell the 734 or 757 to actually do that, it left the spot open for the A320, though it wasn’t ideal either. Boeing had created the 734 as a response to the A320 and larger version of the MD80and not as a 727 replacement. UA choosing the A320 despite the 757 fleet was a wakeup call.

The 738 was an actual 727 replacement in size and capability. Many airlines replaced the 727 completely with the 738 as it could do almost everything and more than the 727.

Edit: but to be clear, it was the replacement in their product lineup for the 727, while 767 was the replacement for the 707. But in the eyes of customers it wasn’t that way at all.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
wernerga3
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:26 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 1:18 am

I have a 1989 AA seating chart brochure which talks about the intro of the 757 to their fleet. This is what it says relative to the 727/S80:

Image
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4982
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 1:44 am

Boeing offered United both the 767-322 and the 757-222 each at a price. Then offered them Both airplanes at a hefty discount the same way they did the 747-400 and the 777-200A and ER. The price was too good to NOT take it! and all 4 models have been stellar in operation. and NOBODY can doubt that. I was at United when both the 744 and the 772 came aboard and I retired when they retired. The Technology has changed since then, In 1989 the A320 was pitched and United bought that. IN Maintenance control only the 727 controllers went over to the A320/A319. It wasn't until the 737 -322/522 fleet retired that I had to switch to the A320/319 desk. But It didn't take long to figure out they weren't even that much different. Yeah they called things by different names because Boeing held a LOT of the patents but Airbus masterfully engineered their way around a lot of Boeing architecture. Even today at United? There are as many Boeing approved repairs that Airbus issued NTO's to than anyone would think. Why? Because when it works? It works! (NTO= No Technical Objection) Any airline flying both airplanes? Is in a damn good position because the Boeing SRM is so vastly superior to airbus' and the hardware for much of it is nearly identical. Not all of it? But quite a bit. Some years ago we had a belt loader accidently hit the side of an airplane and damage a J cannel stringer. We didn't have one nearby but we did have a section of Boeing Hat-channel available so we drew up the repair, got an Engineer to present it to Airbus and in 2 hours got an NTO to use it until the Next major check. As far as I know? They went back later and got it approved as a permanent repair, so on a lot of levels Airbus and Boeing are in Lock step.. Just be sure to NOT present Airbus with a document or drawing that might have Boeing's name on it or in it. And do try at least to use Some Airbus derived hardware unless you can swear there's none within a thousand miles.
They're cool? But not That cool! as I've worked both the 737 and the A320 I now refer one to the other and after this covid stuff is over?? I'm going to apply to be a tech instructor and if and when I get the job? the guys/gals I'll teach will be well versed in Both airplanes and system differences when I'm finished. Thr Job will be teaching USAF guys getting their A&P's as it seems the services seem to be leaning in that direction for some reason. (Bout damn time) Had they done that in the Navy? We'd have guys who could go anywhere and Do anything (except weapons systems maybe. Navy electricians are some of the best I've ever seen anywhere.
But? that's just me..
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2086
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 1:45 am

To add to what's been stated above, search for the 727-300. At one point, a stretched 727 for approximately 180 passengers was part of the discussion. That kept evolving and became the 7N7/757.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14474
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:05 am

VSMUT wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:

Interesting that airlines managed to retire 65% of the world’s passenger 757 fleet before they found a replacement.


Remember that in the States, the 752 did a ton of “trunk route” flying that neither needed nor took advantage of its capabilities except insofar as the climbouts were fun. The 739 or 321CEO is a perfectly fine 752 replacement on SFO-DEN, STL-DFW, or ATL-JAX.


Not to mention the rest of the world, where the 757's range was never really needed in the first place. An original short-ranged A321 was just fine for the European and Asian markets.

It was really just a small handful of 757s that ever utilized the full range potential of the frame.


Excellent points. A lot of 752s (and arguably all 753s) were bought for size more so than for capability.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
GSOtoIND
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:46 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:10 am

I'm sure the cheap oil of the mid '80s kept the 727 competitive enough to stick around in the US. All the dead or dying airlines meant that the profitable ones had incentives to expand, so the 757s ended up being used mainly for growth purposes.
IND. 2018: BOS/AUA/MIA/DEN Next: LAS/SLC/DEN
 
enplaned
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2016 9:49 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:28 am

ikramerica wrote:
It’s true, the 757 was never a 727 replacement other than when the 727 was used for field performance.

The 757 was the non-ER replacement for the 707 and the 767 was the TATL/hawaii replacement for the 707. Also competitor to DC10.

The early 727Adv wasn’t ready for replacement for over a decade from 757 EIS, and when Boeing tried to sell the 734 or 757 to actually do that, it left the spot open for the A320, though it wasn’t ideal either. Boeing had created the 734 as a response to the A320 and larger version of the MD80and not as a 727 replacement. UA choosing the A320 despite the 757 fleet was a wakeup call.

The 738 was an actual 727 replacement in size and capability. Many airlines replaced the 727 completely with the 738 as it could do almost everything and more than the 727.

Edit: but to be clear, it was the replacement in their product lineup for the 727, while 767 was the replacement for the 707. But in the eyes of customers it wasn’t that way at all.


This is completely untrue. When the 767 was produced, ETOPS was not a thing - the 767 was therefore not used at all on Hawaii and used hardly at all over the Atlantic. The 767 was not a replacement for intercontinental overwater applications of the 707, of which there were many.

Boeing's conception of the 767 was as a intra-continental aircraft. It was, in fact, conceived as a domestic US aircraft. I remember flying it on UA from IAD to DEN, for instance.

Boeing (and many others) were completely wrong about how air travel would develop once deregulation hit (the 757/767 twin twins were developed pre-deregulation but entered service in the very early years of de-regulation). It turned out that what was prized was frequency. This is why Boeing had to rush its 737-300 out as a quick redesign of the 737-200 - because the 757 and 767 turned out to be far too large for how the market developed post-deregulation.

The desire for frequency led to gauges being shrunk overall, and this in turn meant that there was also a "push" element to the advent of ETOPS. Not only did TWA and others want to use an aircraft smaller than the 747 and L1011/DC-10 transAtlantic, but also it was clear that the candidate aircraft, the 767, was somewhat too large for many of the domestic routes for which it had originally been envisioned. In other words, to some extent they had 767s burning a hole in their pocket.

I remember when 757s started flying transcon missions in the early-mid 1980s how odd it seemed, since those routes were the preserve of 3 and 4 engine widebodies and four-engine narrowbodies (707 and DC-8s) previously. And here came this twin and it was flying coast to coast. It seemed... weird. Completely routine these days, but for a long time the 757 was the only narrowbody twin capable of coast to coast service.
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:13 am

To add to the discussion: the 721 of the 1960s hung its hat on the fact that it could rocket off a regular runway and out-range the Caravelle, DC-9, BAC-111, 732 and similar contemporary jets. The 722 ADV kept that tradition: being able to get off the runway with some hustle, carry more passengers and go about 2000 nm. No other narrow body under a 707 or DC-8 could match that.

Those attributes were also goals for the 757: a big capacity narrowbody that could rocket off a regular runway and have enough wing to go places (eventually about 50% more than 722 ADV). Don't forget that the RB211 was a shrink of an engine from a family that could produce over 50,000 lbs. When Boeing asked for power, RR asked "how much do you have in mind?"

727 production ended in 1984 but really the production line had been running dry since about 1981. It was probably due to the recession at the time, as well as competition from the new MD-80 (and existing 732). It would be two years later when 757 deliveries would pick up momentum.

As mentioned in the thread above, the 757 fell into a market niche that wasn't perceived when it was being designed. Note that despite 727 production essentially winding down in 1981 and 757 deliveries picking up in 1983, the big years for the 757 were from about 1988 to 1994. This roughly coincides with the heavy weights and definitive RB211-535 variants becoming available. So for a time, the 757 fared well against the newly goosed 737 Classics (which also had a huge production burst in the same time frame) and the new A320s.
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 901
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:17 am

I think the 757 was a wasted design. They could have extended the 737. Maybe called it the 737-X?
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 5893
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 4:47 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
inAjet wrote:
When the 757 was announced, the 737 NG was not yet in existence, MD was still the competition, and so was Airbus. So, from the standpoint of Boeing’s lineup at the time, the 757 was the 727 replacement - albeit with far greater capability.


But when it came time to replace the B722, it would be the B738 that would be the replacement. Delta retired its last B722 in 2003.


Emphasis LAST. DL was replacing 727s long before 2003. DL (not NW) had a first 757 delivery in 1984 if planespotters.net is right.


In fact DL's original intended 727 replacement was the MD-90, but after the Boeing/MD merger, Boeing convinced DL to switch to the 738 since Boeing did not intend to keep producing the MD-90.
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 2713
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 4:58 am

There is a lot of hindsight going on on this thread. The 757 was a product of its time, based on what airlines said they wanted in terms of capacity and operational capability. The engine technology of the time also shaped the ultimate product. In truth the 757 wasn’t a direct replacement but the airlines used it as such. The A320 was a closer 1-for-1 replacement. But was only possible once the CFM-56 and V2500 were brought to market. It was the A320 sales success at NW, US and especially UA that led to the 737NG.

Ziyulu wrote:
I think the 757 was a wasted design. They could have extended the 737. Maybe called it the 737-X?

You have to remember what the 737 was in the late 70s. We’re talking about the -200. A 100 seat “regional” airplane. It did not have the capabilities or capacity of the 727. The engine technology did not exist at that time. Even the -3/4/500 couldn’t do transcon when they were launched in the mid 80s.
 
User avatar
deltacto
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:49 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:30 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
In terms of missions, the B752 was optimized for B722 missions, but DL flew the B752 and B722 alongside each other (I suspect that the B721s were long gone). Did DL operate any 737s before buying WA?


Yes ... Delta had 33 737-232's all delivered in 1983 and 1984

http://rzjets.net/aircraft/?page=1&pare ... frstatus=3
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2531
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:38 am

The 757 was designed at a time when Boeing principally only asked its US customers what they wanted and went from there. Times have changed massively and Boeing wouldn't do this again. Following the needs of US majors meant Boeing made the 757 bigger than it needed to be and the need for trans-continental flights meant it was too heavy for most of these routes previously operated by 727s. About the same time, Airbus introduced the A320 which did everything the 727 did only better and the rest, as they say, is history.

If you live in the US, you'd think the 757 was a great success but realistically it didn't succeed outside of North America with limited or no success in Europe, Asia Pacific etc.
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
 
MEA-707
Posts: 3781
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 1999 4:51 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 9:57 am

I think it could better be rephrased that Boeing replaced the 727 by the 757 in their portfolio and their production line (the 727 was not offered after 1982). So any airline who called Boeing for an aircraft for 140-210 passengers would get a 757 instead of a 727, no matter if it's needed to replace 707s, DC-8s, Tridents, 727-100s, 200s or DC-9s. Plus at their respective activity peaks, the 15 biggest 757 airlines in year 2000 had a major overlap with the 15 biggest 727 operators in 1985. So I'd say the 757 is the thing closest to a 727 replacement.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2598
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:09 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
Boeing757100 wrote:
the fact that it took up till 2019 (with the 321XLR launch) for airlines to find a replacement.


Interesting that airlines managed to retire 65% of the world’s passenger 757 fleet before they found a replacement.


For most missions airlines could replace the 757 with the A321 or 737-900ER. Even Continental replaced their 757-200's on domestic routes with 737-900ER's. Their 757 fleet was shifted to transatlantic operations, because they already owned the airframes, and they allowed expansion of international service from EWR. Later after the UA/CO merger, UA kept all the PMCO 757-200's on transatlantic service and only the PMUA 757's equiped outfitted for PS service on transcon routes. All the other PMUA 757's were eliminated and replaced with 737-924ER's.

It's really only the longer especially transoceanic routes for which there wasn't a successor. Now with the A321XLR, there is a true 757 replacement for that niche narrow body market.
 
TheWorm123
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:25 pm

The European charter/bucket and spade niche has been filled as well by the A321 which can fly to the Canaries from anywhere in Northern Europe.

The only test will be a replacement for the 757-300 which is currently used in that niche for capacity still, although Condor are the only operator at the moment in that role. It used to be Thomas Cook as well years ago, it’s how I got to go on one.
B752 B753 A332 A321 B738
 
drgmobile
Posts: 988
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:06 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:36 pm

Boeing757100 wrote:
Many times here, the most discussed 727 replacements come down to 3 core options

Mcdonnell Douglas- MD90
Boeing- 737 NG
Airbus- A320CEO

However, most Boeing officials still said that back then, the 757 was the 727 replacement. I, among others, heavily doubt this, because the 757 has much greater range, capacity, and MTOW. I think the 757 was successful for not replacing the 727, but for the fact that it is a CASM monster, a high performer, and also the fact that it took up till 2019 (with the 321XLR launch) for airlines to find a replacement. And in my opinion, even that can't fill the top, top niche of the 757.

Anyways, does anyone know why Boeing would say this?


It is a common mistake on here to think that airlines simply look to replace an older aircraft model with a newer model of aircraft with the same basic characteristics in terms of passenger capacity, range etc.. That's not how things work. Market conditions evolve, aircraft technology evolves, and airlines look to the role that an aircraft plays in its operation and the various missions it wants the new aircraft to perform. And a lot changed in the world of commercial air transport between when the 727 was developed and the 757/767 were developed, in terms of the democratization of air travel around the world and deregulation in the U.S. in particular. As fuel economy and range have improved, airlines have generally gone up in capacity for their narrowbody mainline aircraft as they can carry more passengers for the same cost. Capacity has gone down, in many cases, on long-haul routes as mid-sized aircraft capable of longer flights were launched and long-haul service was expanded beyond the original continental gateways (ie 767s and A310s across oceans starting in the 1980s).
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4458
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 1:32 pm

TheWorm123 wrote:
The European charter/bucket and spade niche has been filled as well by the A321 which can fly to the Canaries from anywhere in Northern Europe.

The only test will be a replacement for the 757-300 which is currently used in that niche for capacity still, although Condor are the only operator at the moment in that role. It used to be Thomas Cook as well years ago, it’s how I got to go on one.


Condor and Thomas Cook used to be the one and same tho.

But I guess the Condor 757-300s will eventually be replaced with high-density and/or higher frequency A321s.
 
TheWorm123
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:23 pm

VSMUT wrote:
TheWorm123 wrote:
The European charter/bucket and spade niche has been filled as well by the A321 which can fly to the Canaries from anywhere in Northern Europe.

The only test will be a replacement for the 757-300 which is currently used in that niche for capacity still, although Condor are the only operator at the moment in that role. It used to be Thomas Cook as well years ago, it’s how I got to go on one.


Condor and Thomas Cook used to be the one and same tho.

But I guess the Condor 757-300s will eventually be replaced with high-density and/or higher frequency A321s.

I think Thomas Cook had two at the time I flew on one (2005) and Condor had the rest. I mentioned them separately in this instance though because Condor is the survivor.
B752 B753 A332 A321 B738
 
wernerga3
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:26 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:32 pm

enplaned wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
It’s true, the 757 was never a 727 replacement other than when the 727 was used for field performance.

The 757 was the non-ER replacement for the 707 and the 767 was the TATL/hawaii replacement for the 707. Also competitor to DC10.

The early 727Adv wasn’t ready for replacement for over a decade from 757 EIS, and when Boeing tried to sell the 734 or 757 to actually do that, it left the spot open for the A320, though it wasn’t ideal either. Boeing had created the 734 as a response to the A320 and larger version of the MD80and not as a 727 replacement. UA choosing the A320 despite the 757 fleet was a wakeup call.

The 738 was an actual 727 replacement in size and capability. Many airlines replaced the 727 completely with the 738 as it could do almost everything and more than the 727.

Edit: but to be clear, it was the replacement in their product lineup for the 727, while 767 was the replacement for the 707. But in the eyes of customers it wasn’t that way at all.


This is completely untrue. When the 767 was produced, ETOPS was not a thing - the 767 was therefore not used at all on Hawaii and used hardly at all over the Atlantic. The 767 was not a replacement for intercontinental overwater applications of the 707, of which there were many.

Boeing's conception of the 767 was as a intra-continental aircraft. It was, in fact, conceived as a domestic US aircraft. I remember flying it on UA from IAD to DEN, for instance.

Boeing (and many others) were completely wrong about how air travel would develop once deregulation hit (the 757/767 twin twins were developed pre-deregulation but entered service in the very early years of de-regulation). It turned out that what was prized was frequency. This is why Boeing had to rush its 737-300 out as a quick redesign of the 737-200 - because the 757 and 767 turned out to be far too large for how the market developed post-deregulation.

The desire for frequency led to gauges being shrunk overall, and this in turn meant that there was also a "push" element to the advent of ETOPS. Not only did TWA and others want to use an aircraft smaller than the 747 and L1011/DC-10 transAtlantic, but also it was clear that the candidate aircraft, the 767, was somewhat too large for many of the domestic routes for which it had originally been envisioned. In other words, to some extent they had 767s burning a hole in their pocket.

I remember when 757s started flying transcon missions in the early-mid 1980s how odd it seemed, since those routes were the preserve of 3 and 4 engine widebodies and four-engine narrowbodies (707 and DC-8s) previously. And here came this twin and it was flying coast to coast. It seemed... weird. Completely routine these days, but for a long time the 757 was the only narrowbody twin capable of coast to coast service.

Very well said. And completely the case. The 757/767 were conceived in a regulated embargoed economy, but materialized in a deregulated stabilized economy. And this impacted their initial use heavily.

The IAD-DEN is a cool trip to have gone on the UA 762. I have the original intro UA 762 brochure and time table. They were flying it solely on many domestic routes in the beginning. I was surprised at how many in 1982. Their tag was "if you have a favorite airplane, this one's going to replace it". The whole schtick of always one seat from an aisle in coach (2-3-2) when 747s were going 3-4-3 and DC10s were going 2-5-2.
 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 771
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:19 pm

Going back to the early days of the B757, after the launch orders from Eastern and British Airways (plus a handful of others), sales lagged below Boeing's expectations in the early/mid-80's. ETOPS was years away, the post-deregulation surge in travel had settled down, pilot unions fought them due to the plane's 2-crew cockpit, selling those extra 30+ seats (compared to the B722) wasn't easy, the B757 was considerably more expensive than the B722's they were replacing, fuel costs weren't as big an issue then, the airlines had bulked-up their B722 fleets in the late-70's and weren't ready to retire them.

The breakout orders came when American and United bought the B757 in the late-1980's when those late-70's B722 fleets were passing the decade mark and started to be candidates for replacement. The B757 was also found to be more efficient on domestic trunk routes than using the B762.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24323
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:21 pm

tullamarine wrote:
The 757 was designed at a time when Boeing principally only asked its US customers what they wanted and went from there. Times have changed massively and Boeing wouldn't do this again. Following the needs of US majors meant Boeing made the 757 bigger than it needed to be and the need for trans-continental flights meant it was too heavy for most of these routes previously operated by 727s. About the same time, Airbus introduced the A320 which did everything the 727 did only better and the rest, as they say, is history.

If you live in the US, you'd think the 757 was a great success but realistically it didn't succeed outside of North America with limited or no success in Europe, Asia Pacific etc.

Nice theory, but EU customers were consulted. British Airways was a 757 launch customer, after all. LH and AF were all-in on A300 already (go figure) so there was no room for a mid-range people hauler in their fleets. I get it that people are tired of excessive 757 praise, but it was a success no matter how you measure. Qualifiers like the above are not needed. 757 addressed a large slice of the market available to it and is still filling useful roles.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24323
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:36 pm

drgmobile wrote:
It is a common mistake on here to think that airlines simply look to replace an older aircraft model with a newer model of aircraft with the same basic characteristics in terms of passenger capacity, range etc..

I see where you're coming from, but it's not always the case. The 787 really did end up A330-sized. It started out smaller but customers told Boeing they wanted something bigger. It of course ended up with better payload/range/efficiency but that's because it is implemented in newer technology.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
N62NA
Posts: 4471
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 11:03 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
Boeing757100 wrote:
the fact that it took up till 2019 (with the 321XLR launch) for airlines to find a replacement.

Interesting that airlines managed to retire 65% of the world’s passenger 757 fleet before they found a replacement.

This again? For the umpteenth trillionth time in AvGeek annals: an aircraft does not have to be a 1-to-1 replacement in size/range/capability in order to constitute a replacement.


There's no need to have a tantrum. What he wrote is a quite valid supposition.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 11:06 pm

N62NA wrote:
What he wrote is a quite valid supposition.

Meh, not really.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3575
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 11:17 pm

Revelation wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
The 757 was designed at a time when Boeing principally only asked its US customers what they wanted and went from there. Times have changed massively and Boeing wouldn't do this again. Following the needs of US majors meant Boeing made the 757 bigger than it needed to be and the need for trans-continental flights meant it was too heavy for most of these routes previously operated by 727s. About the same time, Airbus introduced the A320 which did everything the 727 did only better and the rest, as they say, is history.

If you live in the US, you'd think the 757 was a great success but realistically it didn't succeed outside of North America with limited or no success in Europe, Asia Pacific etc.

Nice theory, but EU customers were consulted. British Airways was a 757 launch customer, after all. LH and AF were all-in on A300 already (go figure) so there was no room for a mid-range people hauler in their fleets. I get it that people are tired of excessive 757 praise, but it was a success no matter how you measure. Qualifiers like the above are not needed. 757 addressed a large slice of the market available to it and is still filling useful roles.


LH proper wasn't a B752 customer early on, but subsidiary DE did, with 17 B752s purchased for DE (under the Lufthansa customer code of 30). Those frames were delivered between 1990 and 1994. Competitor to DE, LT, did order 10 B752s as well, with 6 received between 1987 and 1999 and the remaining 4 delivered in 1995, 1996 (1 apiece), and 1998 (2). (LT also acquired two ex-EA B752s.)

IB also ordered 24 (and acquired a few others secondhand from UX, the major surviving remnant of AE), ultimately operating 30 frames. But the B752 was gone from IB after 15 years.

It's really 9/11 that killed off the B752, as if the model had survived a bit longer, it could have at least sought to be used in the emerging Asia market now dominated by the A320/1.
 
User avatar
FlyCaledonian
Posts: 1981
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 6:18 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 11:42 pm

Of course, for joint 757 launch customer British Airways the 757 wasn't a 727 replacement because BA never operated the type. But what it did replace at BA was the Hawker Siddeley Trident 3B. The Trident was blighted by being designed too bespoke for BEA, so it was never a huge seller but when it came to needing to replace it by the mid-1980s there weren't lots of options but the 757 was ideal for BA. Nineteen were ordered along with 19 737-236 ADVs to massively modernise the LHR shorthaul fleet which was until then in the hands of Tridents, BAC 1-11s and the handful of TriStars for trunk routes.

If things had worked out differently with Airbus and the UK Government in the 1960s/1970s then rather than TriStars and 757s it could well have been that the BA of the mid-1980s was operating Rolls-Royce powered A300s and A310s.
Let's Go British Caledonian!
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1654
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Mon Aug 03, 2020 12:02 am

FlyCaledonian wrote:
Of course, for joint 757 launch customer British Airways the 757 wasn't a 727 replacement because BA never operated the type. But what it did replace at BA was the Hawker Siddeley Trident 3B. The Trident was blighted by being designed too bespoke for BEA, so it was never a huge seller but when it came to needing to replace it by the mid-1980s there weren't lots of options but the 757 was ideal for BA. Nineteen were ordered along with 19 737-236 ADVs to massively modernise the LHR shorthaul fleet which was until then in the hands of Tridents, BAC 1-11s and the handful of TriStars for trunk routes.

If things had worked out differently with Airbus and the UK Government in the 1960s/1970s then rather than TriStars and 757s it could well have been that the BA of the mid-1980s was operating Rolls-Royce powered A300s and A310s.


When BA ordered the 757, the alternative was the A310-200, which was chosen by a few of the European carriers for higher density routes in Europe, so clearly at the time its size wasn't seen as being unusual when compared to the 727
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7077
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:14 am

757 = 727 replacement? Yes and no.

Yes, sure the 757 replaced the 727 as Boeing's offer in that market segment. When launched it was Boeing's only offer between 737-200 and 767-200. Also the 757 production ramp up was 100% parallel with 727 wind down at Renton.

And no, the airlines did not buy the 757 in order to scrap old 727 planes. They were bought for traffic growth.

Yes, the 757 outperforms the 727 in many ways. But then we should compare apples to apples - late 727s to early 757s.

Early 757s, as bought by for instance Eastern and British Airways, had the much weaker RB-211-535C engines (no -535E available). They were OK planes, but they did not have any performance parameters to brag about compared to the competition.

Also for the first ten years on offer (1978 - 1987) the 757 sold surpricingly badly. Only 239 frames sold in ten years - very disappointing compared to earlier 727 sales. It wasn't until late 80'es when ETOPS was well established (and the -535E4 engine dito) that the 757 took off for real.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

Re: Why did Boeing say that the 727 replacement was the 757?

Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:29 am

Every parameter of the 757’s performance footprint exceeded that of the 727, for equal or less DOC. Same cross section tube, new just about everything else. Increasing MGTOW and all the capabilities that entails while doing it with equal or less cost is the definition of replacement in terms of a/c design.
Last edited by EssentialPowr on Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:40 am, edited 2 times in total.

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