Tupolev 204 Vs Boeing 757

olddominion727 · Sun Sep 02, 2012 8:31 pm

I would like to ask a question purely out curiosity... please don't flame me... Why are all of the carriers pushing for something with replace the 757 ie 739 extended range, A321neo, when the TU204 seems to be available for the build. Because it's Russian and I can't think of the last time a Western Carrier owned a Russian aircraft other than DHL... does it not have the range or clean fuel burn or range like the 757 or A321neo... one would think they'd be fairly cheep... and could get pretty quickly... just curious

Stitch · Sun Sep 02, 2012 8:36 pm

As I understand it, a major concern with Russian and Chinese commercial aircraft is that they do not have a worldwide support network for things like spares which would impact how quickly a grounded bird could be returned to service.

boeing773er · Sun Sep 02, 2012 8:38 pm

One problem I could see with a western carrier getting the 204 is maintenance costs. I believe most Russian planes have extremely high costs.

Also with the 737MAX/A320NEO they all have fleet commonality. So the 737-7 is going to be the same (to a certain extent, as far as I know) controls for the pilots, cabin crew, ground handling and anything else.

So bringing in the 204 it would be difficult to use it since it is a very specific plane.

AirframeAS · Sun Sep 02, 2012 8:44 pm

The difference between the 204 vs the 757 are two totally different airplanes. Just because one looks like a carbon copy of the other does not mean they'll perform the same way.....or even close to, as I ubderstand it.

kristiaand · Sun Sep 02, 2012 8:48 pm

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
Russian aircraft other than DHL...

To be correct: DHL doesn't own a TU204 directly. They have contracted Aviastar-Tu ( Russian ) to supply them with capacity, who operates the TU204 in DHL colours.

tymnbalewne · Sun Sep 02, 2012 10:46 pm

I'll be on a TU-204 as a passenger in about 2 weeks. Can't wait!

Polot · Sun Sep 02, 2012 11:37 pm

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
Because it's Russian and I can't think of the last time a Western Carrier owned a Russian aircraft other than DHL... does it not have the range or clean fuel burn or range like the 757 or A321neo... one would think they'd be fairly cheep... and could get pretty quickly... just curious

I don't know about range (don't have time to look it up), but the TU204 certainty does not have the fuel burn that the A321neo and 737MAX are expected to have.

AA737-823 · Mon Sep 03, 2012 12:00 am

Quoting Polot (Reply 6):
I don't know about range (don't have time to look it up), but the TU204 certainty does not have the fuel burn that the A321neo and 737MAX are expected to have.

Well, sure- neither does the 757.
That's not the point- the 739MAX and 321NEO don't replace the 757, so we're not really in an apples-to-apples comparison if we say the 739 burns less fuel than a 204.

tdscanuck · Mon Sep 03, 2012 12:17 am

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
Why are all of the carriers pushing for something with replace the 757

They're not. If they were, the 757 would still be in production.

The basic fallacy in all the variant threads on "When/how will Boeing/Airbus replace the 757?" is that there will never be a direct replacement because the carriers don't want one. They want ER 737/A320's now, and they want something more capable than the 757 in the future when the 757's finally fade out of the fleet.

Tom.

anrec80 · Mon Sep 03, 2012 12:32 am

Tu-204 does not have all EASA and FAA certificates required for its operation by Western carriers. Tu-204-120 does - but only a cargo version with Rolls-Royce engines and Western avionics. Even if a pool of Western customers will decide they want some, then:
a) Will Tupolev or Russian UAC be willing to invest resources into R&D of a Westernized passenger variant a.k.a. Tu-204-120?
b) Even then, will Russian aircraft assemblies be able to ramp up the production so that they can meet the demand?
c) Can they design the airplane reliable enough and a support system that can keep these frames on schedule 16 hrs/day, every day - similar to Boeing or Airbus planes?

Over the past decade, Tupolev showed at best moderate success in all of these 3 items. It's a 20th century Soviet project that unfortunately turned out not be a fit for the 21st century market economy.

If we look further, Tu-204 is a product of 752 generation, that is about to be replaced. US airlines certainly should see what larger capacity/longer range MS-21 variants will have to offer. Their story will be clear within 5 years, when they become available to the first customers - Aeroflot sees them as A32X series replacement. They will be designed and 787 technological level and should be performing at least at par with 737MAX and A320NEO

N243NW · Mon Sep 03, 2012 12:38 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 8):
there will never be a direct replacement because the carriers don't want one.

Exactly. The 757 is so rarely used to its maximum potential (i.e. medium capacity long range routes between hot-and-high airports), the need for such an airplane is outweighed by its poor (by today's standards) fuel burn figures.

When you said airlines "want something more capable than the 757 in the future" I'm sure you meant in terms of fuel efficiency. The airlines will be able to compromise by using A319s or 73Gs on the routes that require good field performance and using A321s or 739s on the routes that require the capacity.

No one plane will replace the 757; rather, a combination of different planes will. But for the foreseeable future, the Tu-204 will not be one of those planes. The cost of ownership (mainly fuel and maintenance costs) drives every new aircraft acquisition these days, and it's just not competitive in that regard.

hOMSaR · Mon Sep 03, 2012 12:51 am

Western airplanes have been built under license in China previously (MD80s, and A320s either already or coming up in the future).

Might one of the manufacturers decide to license an existing design to be built in one of the existing Russian factories, or is their level of production support simply not there to ensure a worthwhile endeavor?

anrec80 · Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:25 am

Quoting homSar (Reply 11):
Western airplanes have been built under license in China previously (MD80s, and A320s either already or coming up in the future).

Might one of the manufacturers decide to license an existing design to be built in one of the existing Russian factories, or is their level of production support simply not there to ensure a worthwhile endeavor?

That's done primarily to generate sales in the local market. China is a huge market and building new factory could be justified. Russia isn't, and on top they are working on a range of their own aircraft programs, and Russian airlines will very likely find MS-21 to be competitive with 737MAX and 320NEO at least in their conditions. I would say Russia could be a market for wide-body offerings, but given MS-21 work certainly not a narrow-body one. That's not to say that Airbus or Boeing narrowbodies will not be sold there at all.

A production line for an airliner is being designed along with the airliner itself. E.g. to bring 757 production to Kazan, you will need to get the space, throw everything out of the assembly facility, bring all equipment from Boeing plant used in 757 production, train local workforce and certify it under international ISO standards, certify the facility and supply chain, etc. Certainly doable, but given that by the time you will get it done there will be stronger offerings on the market. Just not woth it to invest into a 20th century product while 21st century ones are to start coming out of other factories' floors.

tdscanuck · Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:45 am

Quoting N243NW (Reply 10):
When you said airlines "want something more capable than the 757 in the future" I'm sure you meant in terms of fuel efficiency. The airlines will be able to compromise by using A319s or 73Gs on the routes that require good field performance and using A321s or 739s on the routes that require the capacity.

The few 757's that are running around at full range do demonstrate some demand for that mission, it's just not big enough to justify the type on its own. A future model that's larger (in both range and payload terms) with improved fuel efficiency will be able to replace those 757's by "underrunning" a future design rather than the current "overrunning" of the 757's. This is exactly what we're seeing happen with the 787 running (economically!) 6 hour missions when it's capable of 18.

Eventually, some larger narrowbody will come along that will subsume the current 757 mission but it will do it by being bigger, more efficient, and longer ranged. It will not be an updated 757.

Tom.

FI642 · Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:28 am

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 5):

and I am totally completely jealous!

hz747300 · Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:08 am

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 5):
I'll be on a TU-204 as a passenger in about 2 weeks. Can't wait!

Agree with FI642! Can't wait for the Trip Report.

TC957 · Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:47 am

Is the TU204 even still being built these days ? Who has them still on order ? I'm surprised Iranian airlines haven't bought them.

kl911 · Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:47 am

Quoting TC957 (Reply 16):
I'm surprised Iranian airlines haven't bought them.

I think they have too much western technology and components in the Tu-204. Arent the engines western? I recall having read that, or is that the SSJ?

PlaneInsomniac · Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:59 am

The Tu-204 really cannot replace the 757 on many missions:

Tu-204 : 175-210 seats, range 2,500 - 2,700 miles

757-200: 200-239 seats, range 3,900 miles (4,100 with winglets)
747-300: 243-289 seats, range 3,400 miles (3,600 with winglets)

In a nutshell, the Tu-204 has a smaller capacity and shorter range.

(There also is the Tu-234, but this one really is a much smaller plane:
Tu-234 : 142-164 seats, range 3,600 miles)

In fact, already the current A321 is closer to the 757 than the Tu-204, and this will be even more true for the A321neo:

A321 : 185-220 seats, range 3,000 miles

A321neo: 185-220 seats, range 3,500 miles (expected)

RayChuang · Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:59 am

kl911,

If I remember correctly, the Sukhoi SuperJet 100 was developed with a lot of Western technology so it could get EASA and FAA certification to operate in Western countries. The same applies to the Irkut MS-21, which uses the Pratt & Whitney PW1000G geared turbofan as one of its engine choices. Indeed, the Irkut MS-21 is designed to replace the Tu-204.

Fabo · Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:02 am

PS-91s standart in the 204 with RRs as option for westernized cargo haulers. However why buy 204 when you can get 320.

CPHFF · Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:06 am

Isn't the TU 204 jus a very badly executed copy of the 757, with very few examples in service?

pvjin · Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:29 pm

Quoting CPHFF (Reply 21):

Nope, it's not.

ATLTPA · Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:32 pm

For the record, I wish the Tu-204 was being ordered as a 757 replacement by Western airlines. I'd like nothing better than to see droves of them here in ATL! But that's unlikely.

My take is that the lack of success of this program could not only be about the plane's performance characteristics but also a manufacturing cost problem.

I am not surprised that this appears to be a high-cost plane to produce; at its core the Tu-204 is a Soviet design and cost controls probably took a backseat to other factors when the plane was developed.

I've also read that because the current Russian airliner industry gets so few orders, manufacturing costs vary greatly. We're not talking about an Airbus or Boeing cranking out 20 planes a month. Less efficiency in production tends to equal higher costs per unit.

This article from the Russian Times, while highlighting a large order for Red Wings (a charter airline) indicates that there have been a myriad number of problems on the cost side of the Tu-204 program: http://rt.com/business/news/tu204-redwings-production-airplane/. Reading between the lines, I'd say that there is plenty here to scare willing customers away.

Hopes for a medium-sized popular Russian twin-jet airliner are probably best saved for the MC-21, which was designed as a Tu-204 replacement: http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/models/civil/ms-21/

In the meantime, though, the Tu-204 is still being produced and improved, albeit in small numbers. Here is more information on the plane from United Aircraft (Russia)'s website: http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/models/civil/tu_204_214/ and information about the newer Tu-204SM variant's testing progress: http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2012/3/14/849/

Meanwhile, the factory which produces the Tu-204 is busy building the new version of the Il-76: http://englishrussia.com/2012/01/24/presenting-ilyushin-il-476/. How cool is that?

ATLTPA

[Edited 2012-09-03 06:38:14]

Trucker · Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:37 pm

Hope UAC's airplanes are better than it's website.

Fabo · Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:34 pm

Quoting Trucker (Reply 24):
Hope UAC's airplanes are better than it's website.

Websites were never of much importance to this type of enterprises... Deals are made or not made elsewhere.

Quoting ATLTPA (Reply 23):
How cool is that?

Cool on one side, on the other side... how uncool it is, that they have not made a replacement for the 76 yet...

Quoting ATLTPA (Reply 23):
Hopes for a medium-sized popular Russian twin-jet airliner are probably best saved for the MC-21, which was designed as a Tu-204 replacement: http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/models/ci...s-21/

I would say it has some chances. I think they should make some Western airline take even a token order to ease the entry into the markets. Or imagine if the Ryanair deal went through (as much as I know that will not happen).

bueb0g · Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:44 pm

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
Why are all of the carriers pushing for something with replace the 757

They're not.

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
TU204 seems to be available for the build. Because it's Russian and I can't think of the last time a Western Carrier owned a Russian aircraft other than DHL...

High maintenance costs, low efficiency, relatively high acquisition cost, very low production and delivery rate, and, as you say, it's Russian, so it's already at a disadvantage in west, even before all of its *real* disadvantages.

Airplanebrain · Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:37 pm

Is there a photo of the TU 204 next to a 757 available. I can't seem to find one. It would be interesting to see the two planes tight next to each other.

Viscount724 · Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:03 pm

Quoting CPHFF (Reply 21):
Isn't the TU 204 jus a very badly executed copy of the 757, with very few examples in service?

Quoting pvjin (Reply 22):
Nope, it's not.

The "very few examples" is certainly correct. Any aircraft with only 71 orders 23 years after the first flight is a failure.