US TransCon 757 Replacement, New A321 Vs 737-900ER

[keesje]

Obviously there are several competitions going on for replacing the large 757 fleets mainly operated in the US (Total 689 passenger 757-200s including American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines). The 757 has great range, capasity and climb but also uses a lot of fuel and maintenance costs are rising.

Airbus is pushing a wingletted and probably reegined A321.John Leahy says (FlightGlobal):
- winglets will provide a 3.7% reduction in fuel burn and around 120nm more range on the A321 from 2012.
- A321 will operate BOS-SFO with (max pass) with a 17% per seat fuel burn advantage, (185-seat A321 vs 192-seat 752).

Airbus points sharklet A321 at 757 replacement market (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/14/341981/airbus-points-sharklet-a321-at-757-replacement-market.html)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/bzzagent-bzzscapes-prod/a321-lrg.png

Pratt and CFM say their new engines will provide about 15% fuelburn advantage. Airbus will probably specify bigger fans on these engines then Boeing can on a reengined 737-900ER.

The 737-900ER has proved not so succesfull as many probably think. Sofar only 256 are ordered, of which 178 by Asian LCC Lion Air and 36 by Continental.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/737_900.jpg/800px-737_900.jpg

Airbus will probably announce new engines for the A321 and include the winglets. This aircraft will offer around 18-20% better efficiency then the "old" A321. Apart from that its a bit larger then the 737-900ER, can carry pallets/cargo containers and has a spacier new cabin.

I wonder how Boeing will make UA-CO, DL, US, AA and others ignore proposals by John Leahy. A320s already outnumber 737NGs in UA/CO and DL/NWA fleets.

What will Boeing offer to fight of these renewed A321s in their 757 replacement proposals? I think just new engines under the 737 might not be good enough.

[kbrockman]

Boeing won't sit idle for much longer now on the Narrow body market.

When the 747/787 programs are into full fledged production , enough engineering time will be available to start the successor for the 737.
It will be more suited for the latest market needs with a slightly wider fuselage and most likely basically 2 versions (with 2 wing-types) , one to compete in the lighter market (ala Embraer, Bombardier , smaller Airbus') probably up to 150 passengers, and one wing-type for the longer versions for more passengers and longer range.

It will probably still look like a conventional tube with 2 engines underneath a rather conventional wing, more resembling the Narrow Airbusses iso the old 737 design.
It will be lighter, probably a lot more maintenance free-friendly and most important , equipped with the latest from either GE/CFM, PW or maybe even RR.

In the end most of the fuel saving will come from the engines, it almost always seems to come down to that.
In the meantime , all passenger AC start to look like one uniform sausage, there are only so many ways of doing things optimally within a specified set of parameters and specifications.

If anything, Boeing seems to be a lot better positioned than Airbus with its future product line .
The Europeans seem to be doing most things half-assed the last couple of years ,ongoing woes with the A380 production and sales ritme, the A400 debacle, the already slipping A350 so early into the development phase, the MRTT which seems to take forever to come up to speed , and finally nothing in sight to replace its narrow-body fleet for a lot of years to come.

[keesje]

kbrockman

and finally nothing in sight to replace its narrow-body fleet for a lot of years to come.

But they are proposing a A321 with much better fuel consumption right now to 757 users. I wonder how creative Boeing can get. Some of these airlines Co, DL and AA are very loyal Boeing customers but can't wait for 10 yrs.

[Graybeard]

These retired 757s are a great potential replacement for the USAF KC-135 Aerial Refueling Tankers, at maybe ten percent of the cost of the 767X or MRTT. It won't happen, of course, because there are no military contractor lobbyists pushing for it.

A new 737 will be far more successful if it offers more than a single engine maker, to create competition. That has made all the difference in 737 vs. Airbus competitions in the past. I'd wager that right now GE has more profit in a 737 sale than Boeing does. It's proportionally far greater, for sure.

GB

[WHBM]

It's a point to consider that the 757 was never initially seen as a US transcontinental aircraft (let alone a transatlantic one), and all the early production operated on significantly shorter routes. Looking at an early 1990s timetable here, both transcontinental, and indeed shorter trunk routes like LA to Chicago, were the province of 767s, DC10s and Tristars, and were seen as natural widebody routes. The 757 got slowly redeployed to these routes in its middle age, having been seen for quite some years as just a 727 replacement.

The routes it started out on have now come down in turn to 737s and A320s.

[twochai]

I would guess that refresh/replacement of the 777, which is under increasing attack from the A350-XWB, is the number one business priority for Boeing whenever they finally free up resources currently engaged on the 787 & 747-8.

[cactusbusdrvr]

I am currently flying the Airbus on those Transcon routes after 6 years of flying the 757. There is no comparison. The 757 has a much greater margin as far as load and fuel capacity.

In the A321 we are seeing initial altitudes of 320 westbound out of PHL and CLT with full loads. After a couple of hours FL340 is ok and maybe 360 if you are going all the way to SAN or LAX. No way will you make CLT to SEA in a 321.

Also, you are doing TOGA T/Os almost always when full and flying over 4 hours. On the 757 we would have 190 in the back out of LAS, depart 19L (the shorter runway) with reduced thrust and fly to JFK with ORD as an alternate. Difference between 73000 lbs of fuel available vs 52500 lbs. And 40k plus per side vs maybe 30k (not really sure, actually, they are afraid to tell us the actual rate) on the 321. The Airbus is under powered, under winged and under fueled for long haul ops.

Having said that, I prefer the 321 to the 320 and 319. The enhanced aircraft are nicer, and I like the heavier feel of the 321. My landings are far better in the 321. No Airbus flies as nice as the 757, though. The 75 is my all time favorite. Convair 440 is my second.

[411A]

Convair 440 is my second.

Not surprised...in its day, considered a real hotrod, with superb reliability.

[WHBM]

Convair 440 is my second.
And when those were converted to 580 turboprops they went up just like a 757 as well.

Cactus, I'm sure you enjoyed flying the 757 more, just like your finance team at HO enjoy the lower purchase and maintenance cost, and notably lower fuel cost, of the A321. You may notice that the A321 is still very much in production but the 757 has fallen by the wayside. Front end performance may be fun, but if is not competitive or cost-effective, what's the point ?

Incidentally, you may have noticed that the A321 fuselage is 6" wider than the 757, translated into 1" more seat width for each passenger. For the Land of Notable Girth, I would have thought that was a benefit as well.

[The Range]

Only a 757 could replace the 757.

[aztruck]

The 757 is still an unbeatable aircraft over 5 hours, even more so with winglets.
The 73 900 is a sad and sorry effort by comparison, and the 321 might manage to get 80 per cent of the way there but with only half the payload.
757, 30 c 233 pax and full holds ..lets go fly for 7.5 hours at m.8 and cat 3b auto land.
Boeing giot it so right they never bothered to change the design until a last minute bit of window dressing using 777 screens for the last few off the line.
A new build 757 with more composite, upgraded engines and nav kit...wow....but then who would buy 787's
Boeing tried to maximise the profitability of the 737 production line and hoodwinked folk into the myth that the 737 900 is a 757 replacement.
Its a pretty useless beast, akin to the 757-300, which manages to carry a few more people not very far as well.
Whoever said that the 757 replaced the 727 was bang on. It was designed to do exactly that, in fact the original design had a t tail because Boeing were going to use buckshee super 727 fuselages for the 757.
For those British engineering fans, the 757 wing is the Trident airfoil, but instead of sweeping back for crazy mach no cruise and having to fit droops and god knows what to get airborne, Boeing gave it a modest sweep and used the astonishing lift capabilities, which is why a 757 has a medium to heavy wake cat, and can land as slow as 108 knots at light weights.
BTW, it also lifts its own wieight..ie. empty weight 58 tonnes....toff weight 116 tonnes.
I love 'em.

[Denti]

Actually, the 757 is heavy wake turbulence category for following aircraft in most countries.

[stilton]

It's very unfair to paint the 753 with the same brush as the 739 (which is a joke)




The 757-300 was never meant to fly as far as the -200. However on the routes it was optimised for,US transcon or west coast to Hawaii it is simply unsurpassed.


There is nothing out there in it's size range that can carry as many passengers and their bags that far so cheaply.



It's also a very nice flying Aircraft..

[cactusbusdrvr]

Aztruck - you have it right.

I know the bean counters love the A321. And for flying PHL to ORL or PHX to SEA (2 to 2 1/2 hours, even up to 3) it does a fine job. And I will admit that in the back the lavs are nicer, the fact that the cabin crew have 8 degrees of temp control to play with eliminates those annoying airbus inerphone buzzer calls during an ATC frequency change, and the new seats all make for a great ride for the pax. Until you need to climb above that layer to get a smooth ride at 370 or 380. Or you need to do the RNAV SID out of PHL (can't do it in the A321, won't make the climb gradient requirement.)

Boeing always wanted airlines to buy the 767 and now the 787. They know that passengers want widebodies on those 6 and 7 hour flights. But the 757, especially if reengined and with new flightdeck displays put seat mile costs far lower for the 185 to 200 seat market than the 767. For airlines that need to fly long, thin routes there is nothing that comes close. An airline that cannot fill 250 seats each day can make a tidy profit flying 190 overseas. Airlines like US Airways will struggle in the future to match the international route system of it's competitors because their East Coast hubs of PHL and CLT do not support route gauge of competitors out of JFK, ATL, or EWR. The 757 was and is great for a smaller hub system like that, but, the fleet is aging and there is nothing on the horizon to replace the 757. The 767 and the A330 are great for bigger cities like London, Paris, Frankfort, Amsterdam, but there is a lot more to Europe, Central and South America and the Carribean that require the smaller, nonwidebody 757.

[WHBM]

Whoever said that the 757 replaced the 727 was bang on.
I know it was me who wrote about this, and that is what happened, but it wasn't the original plan. Boeing announced the 757 and the 767 at the same time, at the end of the 1970s, and said at launch that the 757 was a 737 replacement, and the 767 was the 727 replacement.

I recall this struck me even at the time as one optimism too far by the Boeing marketing teams, and so it proved. The 757 got started on 727 routes, and the 767 from the word go was used on longer routes than anticipated - even the early ones were used a lot to downsize DC10 and Tristar operations. Nowadays the 757 seems to be coming round in turn to replace the 767 as the "small" aircraft across the Atlantic.

[clunckdriver]

As one who was around during the introduction of both Airbus and Boeings into a large fleet one of the great advantages of a Boeing product is one deals with Boeing personel when problems crop up, not self important as----oles from Airbus, whos only reaction is always one of the following, your are{1} Anti French{2}A Ludite if you dont like everything about an Airbus product{3}Not educated in France, thus your qualifications dont amount to a hill of beans, I doubt Airbus can even spell customer service!

[TacomaSailor]

Published Saturday May 22 in the Tacoma News Tribune:

A Wall Street analyst has added her voice to those who think The Boeing Co. will skip “re-engining” the 737 and move straight to a clean-sheet design.

Morgan Stanley’s Heidi Wood told investment clients that she thinks Boeing will spend as much as $13 billion creating a new airplane instead of spending a few billion to put new engines on the existing 737.

Boeing’s rival, Airbus, says it’s likely to take the path of replacing its engines with more efficient models to update its A320 family of aircraft.

Analysts say that both Boeing and Airbus need to improve the efficiency of their workhorse planes in the face of new competition from Bombardier in Canada.



Read more: Analyst predicts new Boeing plane | Business - The News Tribune (http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/05/22/1196563/analyst-predicts-new-boeing-plane.html#ixzz0ogIjO8XR)

[BEagle]

These retired 757s are a great potential replacement for the USAF KC-135 Aerial Refueling Tankers

Complete and utter rubbish. No 757 has anything like the required fuel capacity needed for a credible military tanker aircraft. Neither does it have the wingspan / wing chord needed for wing AAR pods, nor the structural strength for a boom system.

Graybeard, your mantra is becoming tedious. The 757 will never become a strategic military tanker aeroplane.....:rolleyes:

[fdcg27]

If Airbus has all these tricks up it sleeve for this tired old under-winged and under-powered design, why didn't they bring them to light years ago?
If Airbus can really revitalize this old thing, good for them.

[Graybeard]

Complete and utter rubbish.

And you're not exactly an unbiased bystander, BEagle. Me, I'm only a downtrodden taxpayer who can see and smell the $Billions in Pork in a new tanker, be it a 767 or an Airbus.

The 757 has far more in common with the KC-135 than any A-330 variant has. The KC-10A has been deemed to large for the USAF, so the A330 is, too. Used A310s would make more sense than new A330s.

Oh, there are plenty of used 767s available to convert to tankers, too, if more tankers are even needed. We just aren't using that many F-22 against the Taliban. At $350 Million each, we can't afford to risk them against just any police action enemy.

So where's the need for a big tanker to carry for the next 15 or 50 years?

GB

[keesje]

I think the problem for both Airbus and Boeing is that if they make a 737-a320 replacement big/heavy enough to also replace the 757-762-A300-A310 in the 200-260 short/medium range segment, a shrink to cover 150 seats will become too heavy to compete effectively with stretched, lean CSeries variants optimized for 130-160 seats and possibly Embraer.

So I expected a bigger wing and engine for the A320, A321 and possibly longer stretches to cover >170 seats and higher payload/range and a new design smaller and lighter then the 737/A320 to compete effectively in the huge 130-170 seat short/medium range segment.. Flights longer then 2000nm/4 hrs are really a niche globally..

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/RobertNuttallRRNButilization.jpg?t=1274780193

[keesje]

I faked a 5 row stretch of the A321 with the Indian double bogey, PW1000 GTF engines and stretched wing/sharklets.

Could be a 757, 762, A330, A310/TU154 replacement.

Fly Airways A322 NEO Fake Aviation Design - Modified Airliner Photos (http://www.aviation-designs.net/?id=13450)

It seems Airbus has its engineering resources stretched however, so little chance.

Airbus engineers review A320 upgrade plan | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE68S2FZ20100929)

[CabinMaster]

Aircraft in the 200-250 seat segment virtually not exist, so they are hard to find on these "global flight analysis" charts. The price question is: will airlines always and forever fly the same pax-range as they do today, or will they switch to other aircraft if available.
Given the high number of frequencies between some cities larger short range aircraft can make sense (but don't need to, if airlines prefer to keep frequency).

The current standard aircraft (A320, B737-800) were designed with the stretch in mind, so they are heavier than really necessary for the mission.

[CabinMaster]

Did you put similar doors on all four exit locations?
Usually the A321 uses smaller Type I exits at 2nd and 3rd exit lane, enlarged exits at 2nd exit lane are options.

[keesje]

Hi Cabinmaster, a lot is left out. It's more about the general idea, concept.

I think the 200-250 seat segment isn't that small. If we add up all the 757s, 762s, A300s, A310s, Tu154s and a lot of twin aisles that are (mis) used in the segment I think it's a reasonable market.

Yesterday I cut and pasted a more radical re-engining of the 737, in case Boeing thinks a limited "plus" won't pull them into the 2020s.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/Radical4Bill737Upgrade737-900XG.jpg


The cockpit should also be considerable less noisy.