maxpower1954
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: Why Was The 757-300 Not That Popular?

Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:46 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 44):
I flew on many DC-8-61s and -63s and, even at airports where you boarded using stairs, I can't ever recall using more than the front and rear doors. And at many, probably most, airports they used bridges and only one door and it never seemed to be a problem. Turnaround times were long enough for any 4-engine jets that a few extra minutes to board and deplane wasn't a problem.

This is correct, but one reason you could load/unload a stretch Eight faster then is because people couldn't bring everything on board except the kitchen sink. Today's baggage wrangling adds a huge amount of time to the process.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Why Was The 757-300 Not That Popular?

Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:06 am

Quoting Fixinthe757 (Reply 22):
How do you explain the A-340-600 then??

2 isles? Average of 4 pax per isle compared to the 6 pax per isle of the 753?

Quoting na (Reply 24):
Ah, ok, maybe you should have said "... in my nightmares" then

Maybe they are in your nightmares  
Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 28):
Two aisles for 8-across vs. one aisle 6-across.

  

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 41):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 14):
IIRC it is the longest single isle commercial aircraft ever made.

Well your recollection is wrong.

DC-8-61/63 - length 57.12m (187ft 5in)

B757-300 - length 54.47m (178ft 7in)

Thanks for that! You are a legend! That info has now made my desire to fly on one slightly less   I guess it is still the longest single isle twin?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 42):
I now refuse to fly the 753 because they won't let me see the seat map before purchase

Really? When I book on DL I can always see the seat map before purchase?
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1981
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: Why Was The 757-300 Not That Popular?

Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:48 am

I just flew a United 757-300 from Newark to Punta Cana last week. I was sitting in first class and at one point I turned and looked back down the aisle and was shocked at how far the aisle extended.

The plane had not been updated in like 20yrs - the interior looked like a grayhound buss. As we were waiting for the door to open upon landing, I asked a flight attendant if United was planning on retiring the aircraft. She replied, "What would we replace it with? We don't have anything else that could transport this amount of people as cheaply." I suspect she was right, there wasn't a seat empty in first or economy. United used the L-2 and rear door to deplane passengers.
 
jetdeltamsy
Posts: 2688
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2000 11:51 am

RE: Why Was The 757-300 Not That Popular?

Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:52 am

Because they're too long and narrow gauge to be comfortable with 250 pax on board.

Never did like them.
Tired of airline bankruptcies....EA/PA/TW and finally DL.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Why Was The 757-300 Not That Popular?

Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:53 am

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 52):
United used the L-2 and rear door to deplane passengers.

Using the rear door to board / deplane would make a huge difference! I have always preferred boarding by stairs, that way I get to walk around the plane and check out the plane from up close. It also cuts a lot of time out of the boarding / deplaning process...
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
vivekman2006
Posts: 414
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 5:19 pm

RE: Why Was The 757-300 Not That Popular?

Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:55 am

Flew on a UA (ex Continental) 753 from ORD to SFO in October last year.

The 4 hour plus flight was absolutely full, and I was seated in the third row from last. The aisles and area around the lav would get crowded quite often, especially during the snack/beverage service.

However, the worst was de-boarding. It took easily 30 minutes for me to step out of the aircraft from the time we docked at the gate. I stay put in my seat, till I saw people in my section moving. Some people however, had come out of their rows and were standing in the aisle for more than 10-15 minutes!

I had asked a friend of mine to pick me up from the airport. He was 10 minutes away, when I called him (when we docked at the gate) He had to drive back to the parking area, as I was still in the aircraft - 20 minutes later! So yeah, the 757-300 is a pain while de-boarding,

However, this was my first time on the 753 - so one more type checked. Yay!  
 
milesrich
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:46 am

RE: Why Was The 757-300 Not That Popular?

Thu Jun 05, 2014 5:10 am

When the 757 was first developed, passenger comfort was an issue to the airline and their aircraft. Before 9-11, most flights to Hawaii, transcons, and even flights like ATL to the West Coast, and Chicago to the West Coast were served by dual aisle aircraft, which passengers preferred. The 757-300 did not fit that profile. It was a 1990s stretch DC-8 type aircraft. After 9-11, the airlines began removing wide body aircraft from many domestic routes and found that it was an issue. The 757-300 was designed for low cost leisure carriers and as was stated above, the timing wasn't good. Boeing is not going the develop a 757-NEO. The tooling has been destroyed.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11844
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Why Was The 757-300 Not That Popular?

Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:04 am

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 41):
Well your recollection is wrong.

DC-8-61/63 - length 57.12m (187ft 5in)

..and come to think of it, with SM146, BR700-715 or PW6000 the economics of a DC-8-"83" would probably not be all that bad. About the same structural efficiency (OEW/Seats) as the 753, but 6k nm range.

Boeing needs to restart the DC-8 line for a DC-8max.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4439
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: Why Was The 757-300 Not That Popular?

Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:41 am

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 58):
Boeing needs to restart the DC-8 line for a DC-8max.

  

That made my day.
 
trijetsonly
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:38 pm

RE: Why Was The 757-300 Not That Popular?

Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:12 am

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 58):
Boeing needs to restart the DC-8 line for a DC-8max.

I'd prefer to see a Lockheed L1011NEO, but a DC-8max would be fine for me, too.
Happy Landings
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2478
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

RE: Why Was The 757-300 Not That Popular?

Thu Jun 05, 2014 9:46 am

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 13):

That's what matters above all else....CASM.

Only here on a.net.

Quoting OOer (Reply 10):

The 757-300 didn't do very good as others said because of timing. The CASM on a 757-300 is extremely low.

It was that, yes. But there a lot of other factors at fleet planning that trump CASM quite handily.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 16):
The reality is, and the numbers don't lie, that the 757 stopped selling almost exactly on the day that the A321 started selling (and the 739). So I will take the airlines's actions over what anyone else says, any time. To this day, airlines are still choosing to buy brand new A321's over used 757's (See DL's latest A321 order).

Indeed. We need to divorce ourselves from the notion that CASM and raw capability are the only things that matter. As much money as is made from ancillaries and frequency in the domestic market, planes that handle that well (with good TDR; now there's an actual important acronym that no one here seems to know or acknowledge) and can take cycle abuse well will win the day.

When A and B can offer solid reliability on newer frames made for more landings in the same conditions, that's what will become more prevalent.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 18):

Those are useful sure, but the 757s out there can and do handle those situations quite capably, and there wouldn't be a business case there to re-open production just for that.

Indeed. I like them too. But this whole "nothing can do what a 757 can do" thing is a little silly, I have to admit. That much can be said for a DC 8. Or an L1011. Much as I'd love to see new ones of those, I think we know what to think about that.

Quoting Jetblue1965 (Reply 21):

Isn't it the 753 has a CASM that rivals the latest 321s ?

Better, in most configurations. But in the domestic market, it won't be an issue.

Quoting na (Reply 24):

Or the 77W, and to top it all, the future 777-9X? I think particularly the latter must also be awful to board when sitting in the back. The A346 is at least somewhat aesthetically balanced by its four engines.

I've flown in a number of both. I don't recall either being bad for that. Two aisles really do make a difference.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 52):

The plane had not been updated in like 20yrs - the interior looked like a grayhound buss

It hasn't been around for 20 years. In fact most of UAs are
Less than 15years old. They don't look super awesome or anything, but they're hardly the worst things you'll see in the sky.
"Ya Can't Win, Rocky! There's no Oxygen on Mars!"
"Yeah? That means there's no Oxygen for him Neither..."
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Why Was The 757-300 Not That Popular?

Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:45 pm

I think this thread really sums up the fact that a single aisle plane the size of the -300 is just too large (in one class) ie up to 290 pax.
At 240 it seems that such an aircraft is just ok.This was the case of the -300 in 2 or more classes and the same as a 1 class A321 NEO.
Perhpas if one really wanted to max out the business operating case one could go to 249 (ie without adding one extra member of staff). But certainly no more.

If memory serves me correctly when Boeing was hawking their replacement 737 they were looking to drop the 600 and 700 variants and add one above the 900. Just a wild guess but I imagine they were seeing 3 sizes.

1.149pax 2.199pax 3.249pax.

It would have made good sense I think. Obviously we won't see this until either manufacturer goes for a new build.. But by then it probably won't be tube n' wing so not relevant to this (single aisle) discussion really.
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

RE: Why Was The 757-300 Not That Popular?

Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:18 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 61):


If memory serves me correctly when Boeing was hawking their replacement 737 they were looking to drop the 600 and 700 variants and add one above the 900. Just a wild guess but I imagine they were seeing 3 sizes.

1.149pax 2.199pax 3.249pax.



Not mine, but saw this posted on here a while ago...



  
 
UA444
Posts: 2792
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

RE: Why Was The 757-300 Not That Popular?

Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:44 pm

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 62):
Not mine, but saw this posted on here a while ago...

Please no. The horror.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Why Was The 757-300 Not That Popular?

Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:13 am

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 50):
This is correct, but one reason you could load/unload a stretch Eight faster then is because people couldn't bring everything on board except the kitchen sink. Today's baggage wrangling adds a huge amount of time to the process.

That's correct. But there is one more significant difference compared to the days of the Stretch Eight. Y class seat pitch was normally 34-35". That means that you didn't need to be an athletic snake to stand in front of your seat to load/unload your carry-on in the overhead bin. With today's super narrow seat pitch elderly people (that be 30+ years old) stand in the aisle to do that.

In the days of Stretch Eight I was younger and slimmer than today, and I may not be factual in the following: The Eight fuselage was wider, and especially the aisle was wider, something more like A320. Those 3-4-5 inches wider aisles make miracles for boarding/deboarding, and for cabin crews. Correct me if my memory is wrong.

Another thing: In those days so long time ago we seldom boarded an almost full plane. Much more often it was way less than half full. Airlines were happy with load factors around 50. Some 35 years ago I was on a 707-320B together with 11 more pax. Deboarding took one minute. It rarely happens today.

As for 757-300MAX: Boeing offered the perfect successor almost a decade ago. It is named 787-3. It will be produced when the airlines want it.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26700
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why Was The 757-300 Not That Popular?

Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:19 am

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 64):
As for 757-300MAX: Boeing offered the perfect successor almost a decade ago. It is named 787-3. It will be produced when the airlines want it.

Actually that is a de-rate 787-8 (as it ended up being better than the 787-3 on every mission thanks to the superior aero).
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Why Was The 757-300 Not That Popular?

Fri Jun 06, 2014 2:23 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 65):
Actually that is a de-rate 787-8 (as it ended up being better than the 787-3 on every mission thanks to the superior aero).

Well, yes, they share the fuselage and design philosophy.

But the 787-3 with way less than half the range capability, shorter wing (to fit "domestic" gates), way lower empty weight and 68,000kg lower MTOW the -3 was targetted at a very different market segment.

Of course there is nothing a -3 could do that an -8 can't do (except fit at a narrow gate). But sure a -3 could be produced more cheaply and be operated more cheaply on the range it was designed for, and unlike the -8 it would fit 753 specs quite well.

The 787-3 problem is that if it can't sell considerably better than the 753 did, then Boeing can't make a business case on it. With the extra R&D resources distributed on much fewer frames the -3 could even become more expensive than the -8.

The market has spoken. For US transcon like routes the future spells 738/739MAX and 320/321NEO, not 787-3. And 757 will be put to rest when worn out.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26700
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why Was The 757-300 Not That Popular?

Fri Jun 06, 2014 2:41 am

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 66):
But the 787-3 with way less than half the range capability, shorter wing (to fit "domestic" gates), way lower empty weight and 68,000kg lower MTOW the -3 was targetted at a very different market segment.

All true, but that shorter wingspan crippled the plane aerodynamically compared to her wider-winged sister, making it less efficient than the 787-8 on stage lengths greater than about 500 kilometers. That is why ANA and JAL cancelled and are taking de-rated 787-8s for their domestic needs.

Though now that the 777X will have folding wingtips, I wonder if we may not yet see the 787-3 return in the next decade with the lighter structure and folding wingtips to allow it to fit in a 52m Group IV / Code D gate as the 787-3 was designed to.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Why Was The 757-300 Not That Popular?

Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:50 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 67):
All true, but that shorter wingspan crippled the plane aerodynamically compared to her wider-winged sister, making it less efficient than the 787-8 on stage lengths greater than about 500 kilometers. That is why ANA and JAL cancelled and are taking de-rated 787-8s for their domestic needs.

Sure you are right. But if we imagine that the 787-3 had been ordered in large numbers like the -8, then the -3 would have left the factory gate with a much lower sticker price with the shorter wing and other structures optimized for the 68,000kg lower MTOW, and the equation ending up with 500km breakeven would be very different.

Old 757 and 767-non-ER (and A300/310) are nowadays mostly replaced by 737 and A320 - more direct flights, higher frequency. Had they been replaced by 787-3 instead (meaning >1,000 delivered over the next decade), then we would have seen the -3 with a $1-2 million lower annual leasing fee than the -8. And the -3 would have been a great economic performer.

For a CFRP wing a much greater part of the final price is one time up front production facility costs - moulds, layup robots, autoclaves etc, while on alluminum wings riverting labor is a greater part. Therefore making a CFRP wing by the dozens instead of by the many hundreds is an economic catastrophe for the manufacturer.

The Boeing / JAL-ANA deal is likely something like this: You order a brand new Chevy model at GM. GM later tells you that they regretted the deal since they are not going to produce that Chevy model. But since you have a contract, then they offer to give you what they have instead, which happens to be a Cadillac. What would you say?
1. Thank you.
2. Aw s**t, then my insurance fee will rise $50/yr.

I guess you would stick to version #1. So would I, and JAL and ANA did the same.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs

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