Boeing, Airbus Can't Replace the 757

[dash8roa]

While the airbus 321neo and the boeing 737-9re will add to the range,it remains to be seen if it includes flights across the pond.One point missed is that both of these variants will not have the performance of the 757 off short runways.757's are the staple at sna and other airports in the caribbean.The 757 is a rocket and today with the emphasis on fuel,I doubt any aircraft proposed will match the 757 in getting off short runways.

 

[767one]

While the airbus 321neo and the boeing 737-9re will add to the range,it remains to be seen if it includes flights across the pond.One point missed is that both of these variants will not have the performance of the 757 off short runways.757's are the staple at sna and other airports in the caribbean.The 757 is a rocket and today with the emphasis on fuel,I doubt any aircraft proposed will match the 757 in getting off short runways.

I guess they are going to have to add some land to some of the islands when the 75's are gone.

Bob

 

[BoeingBoy]

In the "nobody really knows what the future holds no matter how much they say otherwise" department: DL has ordered 100 737-900ER's to replace 757's.

"Delta Air Lines will announce an order for 100 Boeing 737-900s tomorrow, according to several sources. Delta has been examining two potential procurements, one to replace 757s, and another to replace DC-9s. This announcement is the first of the two competitions to be decided." Air Insight

Presumably these will be used for domestic service primarily since it will still leave DL with almost 100 757's and Boeing lists the range of the -900ER as 675nm less than the 757.

Jim

 

[700UW]

Well WT wont like that, then DL wont be the largest operator of the 757s anymore, lol.

 

[Travelpro72]

When a production line closes for an aircraft type can it be reopened? I'm sure they pump other types through the former 757 line now. If they don't have a true replacement for the 757 why not re-engine the 757 and upgrade it to today's standards. I'm sure it's not that simple but if you have an aircraft that works and works well why not just build off that airplane?

 

[700UW]

I believe they got rid of the tooling and associated machinery, not sure if it was built at Renton, or Everett.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Since other airlines are reducing their 757 fleets via replacement and it isn't even certain that the 739 order, if confirmed, will replace 757s or 320s or M80s, it can't be known how the size of DL's fleet will compare with other airlines....
but given that the average age of the 320 fleet is only 1 year longer than the 757 fleet, the chances are that a good number of these airplanes will go to replace the current 70 or so strong 320 fleet.
Airfleets notes that DL is in the bottom quartile of airlines in terms of 320 fleet age but average for 757 fleet age.

 

[BoeingBoy]

When a production line closes for an aircraft type can it be reopened? I'm sure they pump other types through the former 757 line now. If they don't have a true replacement for the 757 why not re-engine the 757 and upgrade it to today's standards. I'm sure it's not that simple but if you have an aircraft that works and works well why not just build off that airplane?

Looked at from Boeing's perspective, they're about to start delivering a 757 replacement (and 767 to boot) - the 787-8. At the low end, carries about the same # of passengers (210-250), all the range you'd need (up to 8200nm), faster (0.85 Mach cruise) and more efficient. When taken together with the 737 family (especially with new engines) that fills the shorter-haul role up to 190 or so seats, why build a new 757 that would be less efficient than what they're building now or soon (re-engined 737's)?

Jim

 

[Art at ISP]

The 757 was built at Renton. The capacity freed up by canceling the 757 was used to add production lines for the 737 series. It is interesting to visit Renton...and see freshly built jets leave from a very short runway..

 

[700UW]

I have been to the Everett plant, we got a private tour right after 9/11, the factory tours were closed to the general public. Since there was an IAM Communications Conference going on, and the IAM represents Boeing we got a behind the scenes tour.

It is the world's largest building by volume and area, they build the 747, 767, 777 and 787 there. Air Force One was there under going mods, they had a special area, barbed wired, cement barricades, fences and MPs with M16s guarding it.

Ironic thing is when they 757s were finished, they were flown to Everett and delivery happened there.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Looked at from Boeing's perspective, they're about to start delivering a 757 replacement (and 767 to boot) - the 787-8. At the low end, carries about the same # of passengers (210-250), all the range you'd need (up to 8200nm), faster (0.85 Mach cruise) and more efficient. When taken together with the 737 family (especially with new engines) that fills the shorter-haul role up to 190 or so seats, why build a new 757 that would be less efficient than what they're building now or soon (re-engined 737's)?

Jim

except that the 787 in any form is still substantially more airplane that the 757 in TATL service. Since the 757 really wasn't marketed as a TATL plane from the beginning and there are probably less than 100 that operate in that capacity, it may well be that neither Boeing or Airbus is willing to build a plane that directly replaces the 757 on 4000 mile missions.
The 767 - which is operated by all US TATL operators of the 757 - might be around longer than the 757 if for no other reason that the 767 should take alot longer to reach the end of its service life. (noting that the 762s that US operates are older than the average of the US 767 fleet and that the 764s at CO/UA and DL are pretty young aircraft that seat almost as many people as a 787-8 but are best for the 9-10 hr flights that are the average for TATL routes.

 

[BoeingBoy]

except that the 787 in any form is still substantially more airplane that the 757 in TATL service.

True, but the 757 operates routes that don't need it's full capabilities either. TA range is fine but not needed CLT-MCO/Caribbean. Hot/high performance is great but isn't needed in MIA, PHL, JFK/EWR. Every airline fleet is a compromise. As nice as it'd be to pull just the right plane out for each flight - just enough range, just enough seating capacity - no airline can afford the variety to do that (although DL, as a consequence of the merger, is probably closest but that will change). It looks like Boeing is content to offer the 737 and 787 as replacements for the 757/767 for at least a decade (except maybe the re-engined 737 we'll see down the road what they decide on a 737 replacement), while Airbus is doing the same with the 320 family and 330-200 (escept maybe the neo but the smallest 350 is quite a bit larger than the 757/767 200 models). At the end of the day, a more efficient airplane on a route that doesn't need it's range is as good as or better than a less efficient airplane on a route that doesn't need it's range.

Actually, absent finding 8-10 late model 757's, US is in the most precarious position with their small fleet with a significant percentage of 20-25 year old airframes and nothing on order to replace them soon. No wonder they're talking to Airbus about the capability of the 321neo...

Jim

 

[Art at ISP]

I have been to the Everett plant, we got a private tour right after 9/11, the factory tours were closed to the general public. Since there was an IAM Communications Conference going on, and the IAM represents Boeing we got a behind the scenes tour.

It is the world's largest building by volume and area, they build the 747, 767, 777 and 787 there. Air Force One was there under going mods, they had a special area, barbed wired, cement barricades, fences and MPs with M16s guarding it.

Ironic thing is when they 757s were finished, they were flown to Everett and delivery happened there.

As part of the Star Alliance Megado last November, we flew into Everett, had a VIP tour which included our being the first airline customers to go on board a 787, and got on board one of the modified 747s which carry 787 fuselages..that was something to remember.

700 you're not quite right about deliveries. While some work on the narrow bodies may be done at Everett, they are finished off and delivered to airlines from Boeing Field where the Customer Center is located. Boeing Field is just north of SEA and you overfly it on RY 16 approaches to SEA TAC.

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

Oops, dupe post. (Mod, plz delete)

 

[WorldTraveler]

True, but the 757 operates routes that don't need it's full capabilities either. TA range is fine but not needed CLT-MCO/Caribbean. Hot/high performance is great but isn't needed in MIA, PHL, JFK/EWR. Every airline fleet is a compromise. As nice as it'd be to pull just the right plane out for each flight - just enough range, just enough seating capacity - no airline can afford the variety to do that (although DL, as a consequence of the merger, is probably closest but that will change). It looks like Boeing is content to offer the 737 and 787 as replacements for the 757/767 for at least a decade (except maybe the re-engined 737 we'll see down the road what they decide on a 737 replacement), while Airbus is doing the same with the 320 family and 330-200 (escept maybe the neo but the smallest 350 is quite a bit larger than the 757/767 200 models). At the end of the day, a more efficient airplane on a route that doesn't need it's range is as good as or better than a less efficient airplane on a route that doesn't need it's range.

Actually, absent finding 8-10 late model 757's, US is in the most precarious position with their small fleet with a significant percentage of 20-25 year old airframes and nothing on order to replace them soon. No wonder they're talking to Airbus about the capability of the 321neo...

Jim

I think we are pretty much on the same page, Jim...
there is no doubt that the 757 can be replaced for the majority of its missions by newer aircraft such as the 739ER and 321neo w/ relatively little loss in capability and a fairly significant savings in fuel - plus the need to replace some old copies of the 757. There are aircraft that can fly out of SNA to the east coast or out of some of the islands - they just aren't as large as the 757... but if no one has a plane that can do that, then those cities/airports will have service readjusted based on the availalble aircraft types.
.
It is very possible that Boeing and Airbus will decide that the pretty small 757 TATL market is too small to build a plane for - and that compromising the efficiency of another model isn't worth it.
.
As you well know, US' entire Boeing fleet is fairly old in comparison to US' average fleet age... if US has to deploy widebodies in order to cover some markets such as the Caribbean, then the economics of serving those markets change fairly quickly.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think any carrier is operating Airbus narrowbody service from the North America mainland to Hawaii. IS that correct?