Interesting article about the 757 and what's suppose to be its raplacements, the A321, and 737-900.

Airbus and Boeing's newest variants are replacing the 757 on several routes but the 757 filled a void these new airplanes cannoot fill, "it has a niche, spcecially on the U.S East Coast to non-hub European markets.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Resear...s-Comparing-bw-2172414628.html?x=0

Boeing made a strategic mistake by not offering a 757NG. Can anyone explain the costs in bringing the 757 back with a lighter design and more efficient engines? The upcoming NEO'es and MAX'es still couldn't hold a candle to a 757NG.

While I agree there is no like-for-like replacement, a combination of capacity / frequency can replace the service provided by a 757. Instead of a daily 180 passenger 752 (1,260 PPW) you can use a 5x weekly 763 with 259 seats (1,295 PPW).

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 1): Boeing made a strategic mistake by not offering a 757NG.

757 production ended because nobody wanted 757s. A 757NG would have been like GM bringing out a next generation Aztek.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 1): Can anyone explain the costs in bringing the 757 back with a lighter design and more efficient engines?

Massive, at this point essentially a whole new aircraft which Boeing does not have the resources available to build. At least not without cannibalizing models with far more potential.

And another thing, what more efficient engines? The 757 falls directly in a black hole of engine development. The lowest thrust 757s have about 37,000 lbs of thrust per engine while the most powerful LEAP-X and GTF models are in the low 30s, about 33,000 lbs. These more efficient 757 engines you speak of just do not exist. When it comes to more efficient engines, there isn't much between the 33,000 lb. PW1133G and the 57,000 lb GEnx.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 1): Boeing made a strategic mistake by not offering a 757NG.

They really didn't. Boeing could not find customers for new-build 757s. They had just finished a comprehensive long-range market study based on customer interaction whose final result did not include an aircraft in the 757's segment. There is no shortage of 757s now parked in the desert or leaving passenger service for the freight market. How can we come to any conclusion other than demand for a 757-like airplane just isn't that strong?

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 1): Can anyone explain the costs in bringing the 757 back with a lighter design and more efficient engines?

Several billion - the same cost as starting from a clean-sheet, which is effectively what is required for a 757NG. It's not coming back, ever.

Quoting g500 (Thread starter): Airbus and Boeing's newest variants are replacing the 757 on several routes but the 757 filled a void these new airplanes cannoot fill, "it has a niche, spcecially on the U.S East Coast to non-hub European markets.

It found that market late in life because it was becoming less and less cost-effective in the U.S. domestic market but could compensate for higher operating costs by raking in higher revenues on thin TATL routes. I think we should also remember that the biggest pioneer of using the 757 TATL was CO, who was perpetually short on widebodies at the time. So can we say that the 757 was truly the most effective aircraft for the routes it served?

In addition to the continued evolution of the 737 and A320 series, we should consider that some 757 TATL routes may be overdue for up-gauging to 787-8s.

Another "bring back the 757" thread--> yaaayyy!!

The line was closed because there were no customers!
Yes, it is THAT simple!

The "thing" performs great but it costs too much money in fuel!!
Yes, it is THAT simple!

To compete with "next generation" aircraft Boeing would have to change so much that it's not a 757 anymore!
797??

No Tax On Rotax

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 1): Boeing made a strategic mistake by not offering a 757NG.

No, they would have made a strategic mistake by offering a 757NG.

The market for such a thing is maybe 250 frames over 10 years, if you assume generously.

Meanwhile, they are devoting their engineering and production capacity to something that sells more frames than that in a single year.

The next small TATL bird will be an evolution of the lighter narrowbodies, not a direct 757 replacement. And threads like this wildly blow the importance of the TATL P2P market out of proportion. It really isn't that huge, folks.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 1): Boeing made a strategic mistake by not offering a 757NG.

The truth is that Boeing likely thinks of the original 757 as a strategic mistake from the very beginning. Its niche size is an accident of history thanks to Eastern. It's had an ok run, but remember it was a clean sheet project that was quite expensive to develop and sold only 1100 or so airframes.

If Boeing were to do it all over again, I have no doubt they would create lighter, clean sheet 150 passenger airframe. Or in other words, they would have created an A320 8 years earlier than Airbus.

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 5):

Not to mention, a link to a "study" that costs $60 to print out. LOL!

I'll be so happy when all the 757 operators commit to getting rid of them, so these silly threads can stop popping up every, single, flippin' week.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 1): Boeing made a strategic mistake by not offering a 757NG.

If anybody made a "strategic mistake", it was the airlines. After all, they were the ones who stopped buying the 757-200 in favor of the A321-200* and they were the ones who did not push Boeing to create an updated model.

* - Which is a perfectly serviceable aircraft for so many of the missions the 757-200 was doing for those carriers.

[Edited 2011-12-10 16:36:23]

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 6): Boeing made a strategic mistake by not offering a 757NG. No, they would have made a strategic mistake by offering a 757NG.

In hind sight, they kinda did. The 752LR. At that time though, nobody saw the writing on the wall that there would be a demand a 4500nm+ variant of the seven five. That being said, if the 757 line were still trickling out units today, you can't deny that a 757NG would be on the table utilizing todays technology.

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 5): Another "bring back the 757" thread--> yaaayyy!!

We 757 fans know that it is at best a fantasy to see new 757's ever again, but it never hurts to dream.   

Can, and don't flame me as I am "Mr Novice", but could Boeing create a way to restore 757's currently in service, economically, so airlines that require their unique, niche market specs can squeeze another decade or so out of them? Think of what Star Fleet did to the Enterprise between 1969 and 1979  

I LOVE 757's and don't want to stop flying them or watching slide into the sky!

VC10er, I have enjoyed the questions you have asked so far. As long as you remember to conduct a search first, do your due diligence. Many times I've searched & not found the exact question or found that the topic needs an updated discussion. There are those who frown on this but if you do not like the topic, no one is asking you to read or post in it. If we do not ask, how will we learn?

Quoting pnd100 (Reply 2): While I agree there is no like-for-like replacement, a combination of capacity / frequency can replace the service provided by a 757. Instead of a daily 180 passenger 752 (1,260 PPW) you can use a 5x weekly 763 with 259 seats (1,295 PPW).

You're assuming that passengers are willing to change their travel day to accomodate the airline. I, for one, don't work that way. If an airline doesn't fly the desired route on the day I want to fly, then I'm either on another carrier or booking with a connection.

It's just my thinking and I don't have anything to prove it's right or wrong, but I think a 757 like aircraft is going to come from a third manufacturer not today, but when all the 752 and 763 start going to the scrap man. Both Boeing and Airbus will be occupied developing new narrow bodies and the A350-787 and maybe 777, and I think this is going to be a gap in the market.

Quoting dfambro (Reply 13): You're assuming that passengers are willing to change their travel day to accomodate the airline. I, for one, don't work that way. If an airline doesn't fly the desired route on the day I want to fly, then I'm either on another carrier or booking with a connection.

Good point, there may be passengers who are wanting to travel on a particular day that go to another carrier. Certainly if I "had" to fly on "Thursday" this would be a factor. Usually that is reflective of a more premium demographic with business requirements.

However as we are talking about 757 routes I'm assuming we are talking about routes where this type of demand is not the highest because if it were, there would already be a daily 767/777/A330/A340 or higher on it. Premium demand on these types of 757 routes is not that significant. We are talking about tourist / VFR / FIT routes. On these routes, there may not be another airline flying or the percentage of people who will switch is small. A carrier can afford to leave weekends or Tue / Thu off the schedule.

[Edited 2011-12-10 20:02:55]

I think the 757 was/is a very unusual aircraft in that it has ended up in a specialist niche role very different from the one it was actually designed for. I have no doubt that either/both the A321 Neo and the 737-9Max can fill most of the role that the 757 was originally designed for, what they probably can't do is replace it in it's second life on thin medium haul routes principally from the Eastern Seaboard of the US to 'near' Europe. However, I don't think either manufacturer would intentionally design an aircraft specifically for the role. What proportion of the 1,000 plus 757s built are utilised in this niche? I suspect not enough of them to have made a worthwhile production run in their own right.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 4): It found that market late in life because it was becoming less and less cost-effective in the U.S. domestic market but could compensate for higher operating costs by raking in higher revenues on thin TATL routes. I think we should also remember that the biggest pioneer of using the 757 TATL was CO, who was perpetually short on widebodies at the time. So can we say that the 757 was truly the most effective aircraft for the routes it served?

Which begs the question: just how many 757s are deployed TATL ? I don't think the number is all that big, compared to the production run of >1,000.

I'd think an A321neo or a 737-900ER could do BOS/JFK to Western Europe. Range of the beast should be >3,500 nm with a decent pax load. Not sure how much freight it could carry though. Might be really good for going into MAN/BHX/NCL/CWL/EDI etc.

"Markets & Research- A321Neo, 737-900 Are No 757 "

I keep seeing that meme here on a.net and it is driving me nuts.
There are only 3 things that made the 757 unique:
1. Range (TATL). Initially it was the only TCON narrowbody and is the only high payload TATL narrowbody.
2. Short field performance.
3. 189 pax (approx) size

My comments:
1. Right now the A321NEO and certainly the 739MAX will fall short on TATL range. However... there is much interest in a lower cost per flight TATL narrowbody. I believe we'll see a 738MAX TATL and probably an A320NEO on TATL. Not the EIS versions... but eventually. However, the TATL market is a relatively small fraction of the 752 fleet.
2. The lastest 737NG with the short-field package changes the game. See Boeing's performance charts:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/737sec3.pdf
3. The A321NEO or 739ER are 'close enough' unless one needs the range *or* the short field performance.

Now, for certain short field performance, the 739MAX/A321NEO will never compete. But it isn't as if smaller lengths of these aircraft couldn't replace.

I'm not for increased frequency as much as market fragmentation. For example, DL is flying the 752 to ATL for connections. For many routes, say LAX-Florida, smaller gauge aircraft that are more efficient than today's aircraft should allow more p2p connections. I've watched that start to happen over my lifetime. I see it continuing.

Quoting pnd100 (Reply 2): While I agree there is no like-for-like replacement, a combination of capacity / frequency can replace the service provided by a 757. Instead of a daily 180 passenger 752 (1,260 PPW) you can use a 5x weekly 763 with 259 seats (1,295 PPW).

Change your example to a smaller plane with increased frequency or fragmentation and I agree. Oh, some will upgage (the short haul version of SQ's SIN-ZRH/CDG). Most will add frequency or fragmentation.

Lightsaber

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 18): I believe we'll see a 738MAX TATL and probably an A320NEO on TATL.

I'm not arguing, I'm musing:

But to what benefit? Even in a normal airline configuration, which is doable most likely on many routes, would the financial success be there?

I doubt we'll see fragmentation to the point where United is going to be flying A320s or 737-8s from EWR to every secondary city in Europe - it just doesn't seem to make much sense on the surface. I don't believe that downgrading the current markets served with the 757 to a smaller plane will make driving sense?

Perhaps, and maybe just perhaps, they could get yield to a few key secondary markets with a typical configuration - or even an all business config or a half business half economy config similar to Dedicate. But again - those have to be HIGH yield markets. I'm not sure there's a lot within the range of EWR or JFK that make a ton of sense.

NS

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 1): Boeing made a strategic mistake by not offering a 757NG.

I'm am going to be the Nth person to quote this with a question for the knowledgeable folks around here. The 757 was made at Renton, right? And that manufacturing space is now popping out 737s at a rapid pace, no? Or was it mothballed and sold?

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 18): Right now the A321NEO and certainly the 739MAX will fall short on TATL range. However... there is much interest in a lower cost per flight TATL narrowbody. I believe we'll see a 738MAX TATL and probably an A320NEO on TATL. Not the EIS versions... but eventually. However, the TATL market is a relatively small fraction of the 752 fleet.

Exactly. There aren't more than 50 or so 752s flying TATL at the moment. Would a 737MAX TATL sell in enough numbers to justify its development? Or would it just sell much like the 764 (30 to DL, 20 to UA/CO and that's it)?

Quoting UALWN (Reply 21): Exactly. There aren't more than 50 or so 752s flying TATL at the moment.

According to Innovata there were 80 757 flights that were over 3500 sm last week (BTW, JFK-LHR is 3451 sm). Of course, not all were TATL (eg. MIA-LPB) but at the very least we can say that only 40 aircraft were needed for that range bracket.

Quoting jimbobjoe (Reply 7): The truth is that Boeing likely thinks of the original 757 as a strategic mistake from the very beginning. Its niche size is an accident of history thanks to Eastern. It's had an ok run, but remember it was a clean sheet project that was quite expensive to develop and sold only 1100 or so airframes.

1,100 airframes hardly qualifies for classification as a "mistake". The 757 had its time and it did a great job. No, the 739 and A321 don't fill its niche, but then the article is by someone who's making comparisons from an armchair and somehow didn't do the further research to see if there's a demand from airlines for a 757 replacement. On the flip side, I suspect the 797 will be a blend of capacities to fill the 739, A321 and 757 seat capacities with two or three different sub-types.

Quoting dfambro (Reply 13): You're assuming that passengers are willing to change their travel day to accomodate the airline. I, for one, don't work that way. If an airline doesn't fly the desired route on the day I want to fly, then I'm either on another carrier or booking with a connection

Same here. I fly when I need to fly and if mr first choice airline doesn't go when I need them to I'm on another carrier it's that easy. I think that the vast majority of people in today's, need it when I want it, society are like this.

That being said, I too am a big 75 fan. She's my favorite bird currently in the friendly skies. But Boeing isn't going to start producing neo versions or anything like that. The market is too small and really outside of the US there aren't too many in large operation (yes I know about the European operators but I'm comparing them to the large number of 75's in operation over here). The 75 will undoubtedly live on in cargo operation for many years and there are still some years left before they start getting phased out in large numbers by passenger operators. So my advice to all you fellow 75 lovers out there is to enjoy them while you can and savor ever flight on one. If you guys are anything like me I always go out of my way to fly on one of the old gals.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 10): At that time though, nobody saw the writing on the wall that there would be a demand a 4500nm+ variant of the seven five.

Yeah, even in aviation sometimes developments can surprise anyone, including the airlines and aircraft manufacturers.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 10): That being said, if the 757 line were still trickling out units today, you can't deny that a 757NG would be on the table utilizing today's technology.

That would be something right?   Too bad that it is not going to happen.

um, when was the 321 supposed to be the replacement for the 757. my understanding was that the 321 is a higher capacity version of the A320, which is a competitor to the 737. There seems to be an obsession trying to compare the two aircraft here...

c.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 18): There are only 3 things that made the 757 unique: 1. Range (TATL). Initially it was the only TCON narrowbody and is the only high payload TATL narrowbody. 2. Short field performance. 3. 189 pax (approx) size

   Agreed.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 18): Change your example to a smaller plane with increased frequency or fragmentation and I agree. Oh, some will upgage (the short haul version of SQ's SIN-ZRH/CDG). Most will add frequency or fragmentation.

   My example of going to a 5x weekly 763 was just one way of servicing the route. I assumed that the range required was too much for the 737 / A320 series & so I selected a 763. Of course if within range, a 2x daily service with a smaller plane will do just fine. The market being served with a 757 in 1985 surely has different demands today was my point.

Quoting JHCRJ700 (Reply 24): Same here. I fly when I need to fly and if mr first choice airline doesn't go when I need them to I'm on another carrier it's that easy. I think that the vast majority of people in today's, need it when I want it, society are like this.

While I agree that most people "want" this, it is not always possible. The 757 routes are usually thinner & therefore may not have many carriers on it. Take the MIA-LPB route mentioned earlier. If AA decided to cut that to only 5x weekly there is no other option for a nonstop / direct flight as AA is the only carrier on the route. These were the examples in which I said that a larger aircraft with less frequency can still serve the route.

"Another "bring back the 757" thread--> yaaayyy!!"

Well, this is my first ever post here on a.net, so it's new to me. I signed up to hopefully share some of my knowledge and experiences and learn from the many other enthusiasts out there like me. I hope members complaining of thread topics are the exception not the norm; if you find it boring, don't read or comment on it please? Thank you.

"Boeing made a strategic mistake by not offering a 757NG."

I have not seen a response talking about the context in which the 757 was offered, sold, and upgraded. The 757 came out in the early '80's, shortly after deregulation. Two things were happening then: legacies were making significant investments in their hub and spoke systems (757 is a better point to point aircraft). Also, many new competing airlines were created, and investors are not keen on spending more money on a brand new airplane, when cheaper aircraft, such as a 737 or 727 can do almost the same thing, and they only have to add frequency to make up the passenger difference.

Second, when the 757 came out, I believe there were still some unions who were requiring airlines to fly a 3 man cockpit even if the plane didn't require it. So, even though the 737 or 757 were more efficient, airlines were less motivated to buy them because they still had the headache of the three man crew. The costs are not one-to-one, but the stress could have pushed some airlines away from the 757.

From around the beginning of the 60's till the mid 80's, about a 25 year period, how many new jet airliners were introduced? The DC-9, DC-10, 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, and 767. There were simply too many aircraft to choose from so the when the 757 was introduced, of course the demand would not have been that strong.

Fuel. When the 757 came out, fuel wasn't as big of a concern as it is now, thus the efficiency of the 757 was not a selling point to airlines in the 1980's. I believe the emergence of the RJ market is directly due to fuel and efficiency concerns for hub and spoke systems.

Finally, I believe that Boeing didn't want to develop or promote a 757NG because they wanted all focus on the 787. I believe a 757NG would have filled the gap in the delay of the 787, and even an extended range 757-300 would have warranted significant demand. Sales of the 787 indicate the strong demand for point to point aircraft, and the 757 was one of the best. But customers won't buy it if the manufacturer isn't pushing it 100%.

Thanks for reading my first, and long, post  .

Quoting TJCAB (Reply 26): um, when was the 321 supposed to be the replacement for the 757. my understanding was that the 321 is a higher capacity version of the A320, which is a competitor to the 737. There seems to be an obsession trying to compare the two aircraft here

The problem here (and one of the things that I think drives lots of these discussions) is that you can't make a specific distinction between types and say that one type only handles one market segment, or only competes with one other airplane.

When the A321 was developed, there was no higher-capacity version of the 737. The next size up in Boeing's lineup *was* the 757. If you take the capacities of the two planes (321 and 757) they are very close. When the A321 entered service, the largest 737 was the -400, which was about the same size as the A320 (but with less range).

The "obsession" is with people trying to resurrect the 757's production line. Comparing the 757 and A321 in size is simply a fact of numbers.

The A320 was a competitor to both the 737 and 757 (among other types). It competed against the 737 for size, and the 757 for its ability to fly long-range domestic service in the US.

That's what forced Boeing to develop the 737NG, and with a cheaper-to-operate 737 now able to fly transcons (and US-Hawaii service), the need for the 757 was greatly reduced. Hence, airlines stopped buying it.

Quoting jcos15 (Reply 28): From around the beginning of the 60's till the mid 80's, about a 25 year period, how many new jet airliners were introduced? The DC-9, DC-10, 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, and 767. There were simply too many aircraft to choose from so the when the 757 was introduced, of course the demand would not have been that strong.

Welcome to the forums. Very nice first post!

This is an interesting point that you make here. At the time there were a lot of newer birds still around.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 22): According to Innovata there were 80 757 flights that were over 3500 sm last week (BTW, JFK-LHR is 3451 sm).

That almost condenses my 3 points to two. However, I believe the far lower per-trip costs of a 3500sm 737MAX/A3210NEO will grow the market.

How many of the routes are over 2000sm and 2500sm last week? With LAX-JFK at 2475sm (and Florida being closer), the 739MAX and A321NEO will loose any TCON efficiency penalty. While they might not carry exactly the 752s pax/cargo payload, their lower costs will make up the difference.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 19): I'm not sure there's a lot within the range of EWR or JFK that make a ton of sense.

You could very well be correct. I'm biased due to work on the predecessor of the A321NEO (circa-2000) where multiple airlines expressed interest in a more efficient (vs. the 752) TATL hauler to fragment the market.

I also note that the 3800nm TATL range opens up Europe to the mid-east hubs. I would never bet against the mid-east hubs trying to expand.  

Quoting jcos15 (Reply 28): From around the beginning of the 60's till the mid 80's, about a 25 year period, how many new jet airliners were introduced? The DC-9, DC-10, 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, and 767. There were simply too many aircraft to choose from so the when the 757 was introduced, of course the demand would not have been that strong.

You did a nice summary of the 752. There is no doubt, when it was launched, that it was a very efficient airframe. Sales of the 757 stopped with the 737NG/A320. With the 737MAX and A321NEO, most of the 752 fleet retirement will be accelerated (e.g., AA has already purchased the replacement).

One major advantage of a 3800nm range 737MAX or A320NEO will be the 'economy of scale' due to the large numbers that will be purchased for short missions. I see a number of airlines flying TATL in a domestic configuration to maximize fleet utilization. Some will customize their long haul frame too.

Lightsaber

Quoting jcos15 (Reply 28): I hope members complaining of thread topics are the exception not the norm; if you find it boring, don't read or comment on it please? Thank you.

It is the norm when rehashing old questions with the same answers for the thousandth time.

Quoting jcos15 (Reply 28): Also, many new competing airlines were created, and investors are not keen on spending more money on a brand new airplane, when cheaper aircraft, such as a 737 or 727 can do almost the same thing, and they only have to add frequency to make up the passenger difference.

At the time, 737s and 727s could not do the almost the same thing. Until the late 1990s, 737s could not make it across the US nonstop on a regular basis.

Quoting jcos15 (Reply 28): airlines were less motivated to buy them because they still had the headache of the three man crew. The costs are not one-to-one, but the stress could have pushed some airlines away from the 757.

The two pilot cockpit was one of the things that attracted airlines to the 757 instead of the 727-300.

Quoting jcos15 (Reply 28): Fuel. When the 757 came out, fuel wasn't as big of a concern as it is now, thus the efficiency of the 757 was not a selling point to airlines in the 1980's.

  Part of the reason the 757 was designed was in response to the increase of oil prices during the 1970s.

Quoting jcos15 (Reply 28): I believe the emergence of the RJ market is directly due to fuel and efficiency concerns for hub and spoke systems.

Regional jets, 50 seaters in particular, are likely the least efficient airliners flying today. In 2008 airlines couldn't park them fast enough.

Quoting jcos15 (Reply 28): Finally, I believe that Boeing didn't want to develop or promote a 757NG because they wanted all focus on the 787.

What would Boeing have done to it? There was (still is) no new engine. A new cockpit would break commonality with the 767.

Quoting jcos15 (Reply 28): Finally, I believe that Boeing didn't want to develop or promote a 757NG because they wanted all focus on the 787.

Why wouldn't they? The 787 is already only 250 or so orders short of the 757's entire production run.

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 23): 1,100 airframes hardly qualifies for classification as a "mistake". The 757 had its time and it did a great job.

It crossed the 1,000 unit threshold by which we apparently judge success/failure, but it sold about 40% fewer units than the 727 it was designed to replace. That is despite the fact the commercial market between 1980-2000 was significantly larger than in 1960-1980.

I would argue that the 757 was too big and came with too much performance. An aircraft with about 20% fewer seats and 20% range (essentially the A320) would have been far more popular and seen the model to many thousands of sales, not to mention blocked one of Airbus' key growth mechanisms through the 90s.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 33): I would argue that the 757 was too big and came with too much performance.

The 757 was a plane largely designed for the American market, which was a tradeoff Boeing had to make considering the technology of the era. Airlines really wanted to travel across the continent, but smaller planes really weren't quite capable of delivering that at the time. The A320 did not hit the market until 1988, and even that still has troubles when winds are particularly high.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 17): I'd think an A321neo or a 737-900ER could do BOS/JFK to Western Europe. Range of the beast should be >3,500 nm with a decent pax load. Not sure how much freight it could carry though. Might be really good for going into MAN/BHX/NCL/CWL/EDI etc.

Neither aircraft could do it.
Thinking of UA, an ETOPS B737-700 with a 110+ passenger, 2 class configuration maybe OK to fly between NYC/BOS and SNN/DUB/BFS/GLA/EDI/ABZ/NCL/CWL/NQY/SCQ, but most definitely will face problems on the west-bound flight winter-time.

Had the B767-200ER NOT have such a high CASM, that aircraft could have been a good replacement for the B757; and it's still available from Boeing.

Quoting jcos15 (Reply 28): I hope members complaining of thread topics are the exception not the norm; if you find it boring, don't read or comment on it please? Thank you.

Welcome to the site! Thank you for your suggestion but I think I will make up my own mind of where and when I post.

It is however the "norm" to first check for an older thread on the same subject before starting your own! Don´t take my word for it; the site tells you to do so before actually posting a new thread.

For a giggle, check this thread and you may understand why I wrote what I wrote:

Most Over Discussed Anet Topics-Av,Non-Av,Mil,Site (by tugger Oct 31 2011 in Site Related)

Cheers,

No Tax On Rotax

[Edited 2011-12-11 10:04:34]

Doesn't anyone think that somewhere in a corner office at Boeing there aren't a small group of designers attempting to create a composite narrow-body 200* passenger .85 Mach aircraft with an economic 4.500 NM range? The problem is everyone is awaiting the next generation 38-40,000 lb. engine with dazzling fuel specifics.

Believe it or not, back in the mid to late-1970s when B747/DC-10/L-1011s were still largely flying the transcontinental routes, the then upcoming Boeing 767 was described by some as a Cleveland-to-California airliner. Initially the Boeing 757 was almost treated as the skinny-version afterthought. Thirty-five years ago who could have foreseen the massive down-gauging going on here in the U.S. and Boeing 757s being flown on routes like Phoenix-Honolulu or (until recently) Cleveland to London.

No matter how slickly the Boeing 737-900 is marketed, it will never replace the Boeing 757.

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 8): I'll be so happy when all the 757 operators commit to getting rid of them, so these silly threads can stop popping up every, single, flippin' week.

No way matey!

757's were my first memory of aviation. Flight on a Monarch one. Watching Monarch and Britannia 757's fly out of Luton every day. The unique noise the engine makes, The odd shape of the plane and how quickly it seems to get off the runway. When there are no 757's left I shall be a sad lil pup!

Quoting highflier92660 (Reply 37): Doesn't anyone think that somewhere in a corner office at Boeing there aren't a small group of designers attempting to create a composite narrow-body 200* passenger .85 Mach aircraft with an economic 4.500 NM range?

I hope not. They should be sitting there trying to create a composite narrowbody 160-210 passenger airliner to cruise at Mach .78-.80 and fly 3700-3800NM.

Quoting highflier92660 (Reply 37): The problem is everyone is awaiting the next generation 38-40,000 lb. engine with dazzling fuel specifics.

There is no such engine because there is no airframe to put it on. And there is no airframe to put it on because there is little market for such an airframe.

Quoting highflier92660 (Reply 37): No matter how slickly the Boeing 737-900 is marketed, it will never replace the Boeing 757.

It can on the balance sheet. There have been about 460 737-900/-900ERs sold in the last 14 years, and that variant will likely become only more popular. The 757 only sold 1050 over 22 years or so.

It will be possible to mod the NEO and MAX to make them reliable TATL transports. What will decide whether or not these long range models are made, will be the airlines.

Any seller will tell you anything is possible...but how much are you willing to spend on it? The beauty of the current next gen offerings, is their relative simplicity.

Getting more range could mean more wing, more structure and bigger engines. With that, goes a lot of your commonality.

I really don't think we'll see any point to point aircraft being developed between the MAX/NEO and the 767. Those that might want a true 757 replacement, will settle for going wide body hub and spoke...or footing the modification bill.

The problem goes back to Eastern wanting something bigger than a 727-200, which was the original intent for the 757. Boeing went along in order to get the large EA order. The 757 struggled for a bit. Then, sales picked up in the late 1980s.

That left Boeing with no replacement fo rthe 727-200 (or the -100 for that matter), and that pushed Boeing to develop the 737-300 and -400.

The original intent of Boeing was to replace the 707 fleet with the 767, while the 757 was to replace the 727 fleet. In a sense, the 757 becaume the 707 replacement, while the 767, especially the -300, eventually was slotted onto routes that had a lot of DC-10s and L-1011s.

I'm curious as to what will replace the 757, when it comes to smaller airports. The beauty of the 757 is that it has 707 passenger capacity, but can operate at airports that could never handle a jet larger than a 727. The large amount of thrust makes taking off from a short field easy, and the high thrust and 8 wheels on the main gear allow the 757 to land on short runways.

A friend of mine who went from the 757 (both F/O and Captain) to the 738 says that landings are more "interesting" in the 738, with the higher landing speed and reduced amount of braking.

The motivation for this article is nothing short of silly. I am still waiting for a decent 707 replacement.

Quoting RG787 (Reply 14): It's just my thinking and I don't have anything to prove it's right or wrong, but I think a 757 like aircraft is going to come from a third manufacturer not today, but when all the 752 and 763 start going to the scrap man

You mean like the Tupolev 204?

It even looks like a 757.   

View Large View Medium Photo © Peter Taskaev

View Large View Medium Photo © Nikos Fazos

View Large View Medium Photo © Diego Ruiz de Vargas - Iberian Spotters

View Large View Medium Photo © Maksimov Maxim - RuSpotters Team

IMO there is a gap between the largest single aisles and the smallest widebodies. The 332 is a lot bigger than 321, both in range and pax capacity. The same goes for the 739 and 788. The 767 still exists, but it´s only produced in small numbers.

There is a bit of the market that´s uncovered for the time being, but I don´t believe that we will see a 757NG or 767MAX, nor a A330-100 or a A322. But I do believe that at some point A or B will offer something to cover this gap. After reading this thread, and various discussions on a.net I don´t believe this to happen i the near future. Maybe Airbus or Boeing can offer a CFRP single aisle from 2025, or earliest 2020, that can beat the capabilities of the 757.

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 5): Another "bring back the 757" thread--> yaaayyy!! The line was closed because there were no customers! Yes, it is THAT simple! The "thing" performs great but it costs too much money in fuel!! Yes, it is THAT simple! To compete with "next generation" aircraft Boeing would have to change so much that it's not a 757 anymore! 797?? No Tax On Rotax

Contrary to Mark Twain's predicament, reports of the 757's death seem to be greatly under-stated, at least amongst the a.nutters of the world.

How many times and in how many ways can it be said? The 757 has past on, it has ceased to be, it is dead, deceased, lifeless, plucked from the living, has gone to meet its maker, etc. I think you can manage a pretty decent Parrot Sketch with these recurrent 757 resuscitation attempts...Say what you will, but A.net wouldn't be A.net without them  ...

Faro



   

The worst change NWA made was replacing their DC10 service with those blasted 753s. Flying from the west coast, weekly, as I was back then, the biz class was multitudes more comfortable and spacious vs. The 757s. God forbid you get stuck in Y, row 40+. The sardine can takes forever to board and deplane. The 757 is my least favorite aircraft flying next to those 50 seat Bombardier jets with concrete seats and windows at my navel.

Quoting faro (Reply 45): Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 5): Another "bring back the 757" thread--> yaaayyy!! The line was closed because there were no customers! Yes, it is THAT simple! The "thing" performs great but it costs too much money in fuel!! Yes, it is THAT simple! To compete with "next generation" aircraft Boeing would have to change so much that it's not a 757 anymore! 797?? No Tax On Rotax Contrary to Mark Twain's predicament, reports of the 757's death seem to be greatly under-stated, at least amongst the a.nutters of the world. How many times and in how many ways can it be said? The 757 has past on, it has ceased to be, it is dead, deceased, lifeless, plucked from the living, has gone to meet its maker, etc. I think you can manage a pretty decent Parrot Sketch with these recurrent 757 resuscitation attempts...Say what you will, but A.net wouldn't be A.net without them  ... Faro

Welcome to my respected user list.
I thought I was direct, but there is always a superlative!

Catch you on the next 757-thread......in 2 weeks time?

No Tax On Rotax

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 31): How many of the routes are over 2000sm and 2500sm last week? With LAX-JFK at 2475sm (and Florida being closer), the 739MAX and A321NEO will loose any TCON efficiency penalty.

For the 752 there were a total of 528 flights between 2000 and 2500 sm.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 31): While they might not carry exactly the 752s pax/cargo payload, their lower costs will make up the difference.

BTW, the 752's top five range rankings were:

800 - 899 sm - 305 flts

1700 - 1799 sm - 244 flts

400 - 499 sm - 235 flts

2400 - 2499 sm - 209

900 - 999 sm - 191 flts

1000 - 1099 sm - 187 flts

Just goes to show that there are more than enough 757s to move over to TATL if ever required.

Quoting TJCAB (Reply 26): There seems to be an obsession trying to compare the two aircraft here...

There seems to be an obsession with comparing aircraft arbitrarily. Like the 787 can't compete with the 777 or A340 it competes only with the A330.

OF COURSE the A321 competes with a large section of the 757's market. OF COURSE it competes with a large section of the 737's market.

Planes don't have to compete 1:1.

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 35): Thinking of UA, an ETOPS B737-700 with a 110+ passenger, 2 class configuration maybe OK to fly between NYC/BOS and SNN/DUB/BFS/GLA/EDI/ABZ/NCL/CWL/NQY/SCQ, but most definitely will face problems on the west-bound flight winter-time.

A 737-8 or -7 could very likely do it year round, and so could potentially an A319NEO or A320NEO. Even the A321NEO will be getting CLOSE.

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 36): No Tax On Rotax

Okay I have to ask this. I've wanted to know forever. What the hell is Rotax? The aircraft engine manufacturer?

NS