Good-bye 757

[Captain Ed]

I never did understand why Boeing ever came out with the 757. The only advantage over the 767 is a rather insignificant saving of fuel, which is hardly justification for loss of payload, range etc..

I was one of the first to get my ATP with TWA. When I bid on the captain's opening, it had a 3 man crew. By the time I started ground school it was modified so no FE station. Big mistake IMO.

I went back to my beloved L-1011.

 

[DHHeronCLE]

The 757 was a response to the upcoming A320. The a/c sold in reasonable numbers and no doubt made money for Boeing. As an aside, I find it amusing that Boeing has to try to earn commercial returns on its products, while the French (Airbus is really a French enterprise) are able to draw upon the European taxpayers to enable the design and construction of new models.

 

[Just Plane Crazy]

Who ever thinks that Airbus is a French aircraft should look more into the facts. Daimler/Chrysler is one of the largest share holders and they produce With in EADS over 1/3rd of the aircraft. It is a European Company. Tolouse is in Europe as is Hamburg. Do you say that GM is a Michigan company or a US Company!!!!!

As to the age of the aircrafts. Boeing is building aircrafts for a longer time than Airbus. So comparing apples with oranges is not going to make any sence. You have to compare aircrafts built at the same time and if they are still flying. And I have to say, Boeing and Airbus are at the same level.

In regard to composits, Boeing is following Airbus in the usage of composit materials. So don't throw with stones when you are sitting in a glass house your self. Airbus just tokke the first initiative to experiment with this material. Just think about the first aircrafts which have been build with other materials than wood and linnen. At that time every one thought that they will not last.

Boeing killed the B757 with out the help of Airbus. They streched the B737 to a maximum and compeated with their own aircraft. Instead of building a larger B737 they should have designed a smaler B757 as well as a LR/ER version to make it on longer routes. But since SW is stuck on the B737 Boeing followed one customer and forgott about others. Now they have to live with the result.

And by the way the B737NG was the answer of Boeing to Airbus because they got beeten by the A320 in every way. SW could not go coast to coast with its B737 and they needed something to be able to compete.

 

[More Facts and Less Emotion]

I am sad to see the 757 go away, it is a great plane. At takeoff it's like Star Wars, "feel the force Luke". It just feels sturdy, rides comfortably and feels like a workhorse.

 

[DHHeronCLE]

Airbus is and has always been a French enterprise. The fact that they have gotten the Germans to contibute major funding is irrelevant, given the expertise DASA showed wrt Fokker. Airbus survives only as a result of government subsidy. The original product, the A300, was virtually unsaleable. The first US sale was to EAL, on give away terms. Boeing has shown enormous grit over the years. The 707 and the 747 were both bet the company moves, that paid off well. Airbus need not make bet the company moves, since it is really a jobs program for Europe. If the Airbus folks wished to make a large two deck white elephant, I have no doubt that the European governments would step up to the plate. Oh, they already have.

 

[Just Plane Crazy]

Airbus is and has always been a French enterprise. The fact that they have gotten the Germans to contibute major funding is irrelevant, given the expertise DASA showed wrt Fokker. Airbus survives only as a result of government subsidy. The original product, the A300, was virtually unsaleable. The first US sale was to EAL, on give away terms. Boeing has shown enormous grit over the years. The 707 and the 747 were both bet the company moves, that paid off well. Airbus need not make bet the company moves, since it is really a jobs program for Europe. If the Airbus folks wished to make a large two deck white elephant, I have no doubt that the European governments would step up to the plate. Oh, they already have.

I don't know where you get all your knowlage. Apparently you need to brush up on some of it. Because Tolouse was chosen as HQ and the assembly line was avaliable does not make it a French company. In the beginning MBB was the biggest Contributor out of Germany. Airbus was a multi European Company. So get it out of your system that they are a French company. They are European!

Boeing got its funding through the back door with major military funding. The B747 was designed and funded as a military transporter for the US Air Force. When the Air Force decided that they are better off with the Galaxy, Boeing turned around and classified it as a passenger aircraft. So this was an indirect Goverment payoff to help Boeing. The US Goverment was, is and will be stepping in to help US Companies. Fair is fair!

And if you are not aware of it, Airbus buyes many parts from the US. It is not that the US is not participating and jsut suffering. Honeywell, GE, P&W, BF Goodrich etc. etc. etc. are suppliers.

And since you are blaming Airbus for job losses in the US aviation industry (indirtectly) look at Boeing. Boeing is outsourcing a lot of the manuacturing to Japan etc. That should be something for you to worry about. The final assembly is going to be in the US but for exsample the wing is "MADE IN JAPAN" and some other parts might be "MADE IN CHINA"!!!!!!!!

 

[DHHeronCLE]

First, Airbus was originally organized by French nationals, under French law, using a legal structure with no US equivalent. To say that Airbus is not a French creation is to fail to give credit where credit is due.
Second, the 747 was not funded by the US government in any way. Boeing did do a proposal for a large transport, as did Douglas. Both lost to Lockheed, which went on to win (lose?) the contract and build the C5A. Also, the commercial 707 bears little resemblance to the KC 135, and was not built on the same tooling. A classic Airbus argument is that Boeing has received the benefit of decades of government subsidy. I suppose that our government should have opened, say, the B-47 or B-52 contract to European bidding. Air Force One should probably have been a Caravelle, a DH Comet, or maybe, later, a Mercure. To say that Boeing somehow triumphed based upon government contracts is absurd. If defense business can support a company's commercial side, then where are all of the Martin, Northrup, Convair and Lockheed jetliners? Defense business didn't seem to help De Havilland all that much and when a famous French builder of high performance fighters tried its hand in the airliner business, the results were not impressive, although they do build some great business jets.
Third, of course Airbus buys American components. It is far cheaper to buy proven pieces off the shelf than it is to design them from scratch. Airbus thus shows good business sense. In the same way, if Boeing can find Asian risk sharing partners, it follows that Boeing will look to Asia.

 

[flying bug]

Nowadays I prefer Airbus A 320 for its advanced comfort and softer ride, though B737 has the more solid and feasable character.

It seems incidents are more often reported about A319-A321 series. However the B757 has also caused questionable incidents like http://www.bfu-web.de/berichte/99_6x003dub.pdf or http://www.bfu-web.de/berichte/00_6x011dub.pdf.

And it is true that DC9X series had much more character. So I won't cry for the B757 to disappear. Just unlike I did cry much when Caravelle went out of service, an aircraft which I loved dearly for its elegance, comfort and smooth and soft ride.

Airbus Industries BTW is a true franco-german venture. It might appear different to foreigners for the noise the French usually cause compared to Germans in scoring for la Grande Nation. It seems to be difficult for many foreigners to understand that franco-german cooperations work so well in many different areas (politics as well). But we all descent from the same pond and Carolus Magnus is our common ancestor. Maybe we have complimentary distributed talents and this is to our mutual benefit.

 

[goingboeing]

Boeing elminated the B-757 market themselfs by continuing to stretch the popular B-737.The B-757 was originally thought of as a replacement for the B-727 The latest generation B-737's put the B-757 out of business.I agree with a previous post that AA will operate them for years to come and AA is spending a ton of money to upgrade the engine pylons and AD compliance on the B-757.The AA B-757's with the Rolls Royce RB211 engines are the most powerful narrow body aircraft in the AA fleet.

 

[Just Plane Crazy]

Flying Bug: Thanks for backing up my opinion that Airbus is not a French company. As I rather put it it is a European Company.

Going Boeing: You just confirmed my earlier opinion, that Boeing killed the B757 by streching the B737. Airbus had nothing to do with it.

Further more, Boeing is now killing the B717 (last Douglas Aircraft). They never liked it and it looks that they are happy that it is going. We might see a Mini B737 (100 pax max) replacing the B717.

Since AA will buy all the B757 they can get, the market might be opening now for A321 in the USA more than just US. NW, UA, AW are all candidates for that aircraft.

 

[Parkeralex]

 
 
Another Successor of Boeing 757 is 767.The Boeing 767 is a wide-bodied twin-aisle, twin-engine airliner. The aircraft is the most widely used aircraft on cross-Atlantic routes