757 replacement?

[Jack1985]

The 757 which is probably the one of the most successful aircraft Boeing have produced still seem's not to have a replacement in sight, this really stumps me there is such a vast amount of these aircraft in the skies, each getting older and older. We still don't know if the A321NEO will have the range and Boeing haven't seem to have said anything about its successor? Have I missed something or shouldn't these be the top of Boeing's priorities going forward.

[jabird]

How big is the market?

I can see UA really losing out on the transcon market as they operate a lot of thinner routes, and there must be a few UK <> North Africa + Central Asian routes, but this is still largely niche stuff.

I know the 757 used to do a lot of other more intensive stuff, but the 737 has slowly elongated over time to cover a lot of this.

So would a a 757NG sell - sure it would. Would it sell enough units to cover development costs and turn a profit for Boeing? I somewhat doubt it.

[jbcarioca]

It is mostly a niche market but an interesting one that includes several fairly high capacity markets such as US-Hawaii, Northern South America-US and a few others that are less developed today in China and other parts of the world. Neither the A321neo nor the 739max can fulfill these routes, nor could the 757 until winglets and other improvements happened.

Boeing said a year or so ago that they will look at that market, and Airbus probably is too. Most likely they'd both do a bit further tweaking for the neo/max. Personally I'd expect the niche to grow as LCC's continue to expand their horizons.

[DADDY-OH!]

The only aircraft that could replace the B757 is another 757.

If the A320/321/B737 family were as good & capable then we'd be seeing them is as many numbers operating Western Europe - Eastern US routes for the US majors.

Great aircraft, very flexible, ideal for today's turbulent times & very profitable. I love it to bits!

[jabird]

ideal for today's turbulent times & very profitable

Anyone got a comparison between different frames & distances? (I know charts are there for each model, but was wondering where the crossovers were).

BA had already got rid of their 757s (last year), presumably because they can use other a/c to operate these routes. Then again, it is easier for UA to operate 757s to UK regional cities from EWR than for BA to do v/v from LHR, as the 757 would be a waste of a good slot at the latter.

I'd be interested to see how the 757 compares with the 767. Usually there would be an economy of scale due to the extra size, but the 767 is less space efficient due to having an extra aisle for just one more seat.

The legacies can always extend the range of the 737 by putting in more premium seats, but can you really see the locos doing this for transat, and still generating enough yield?

[PAXboy]

The possibility of Boeing developing a 75NG must be remote and reducing to zero. Once they fianlly get the 78 fixed (and I don't just mean airborne) they will have no money left. Airbus might decide then to go for this market.

It is a great pity as the 75 has been a stonking machine to replace the 72 and it is one of the prettiest going. I understand that the fuel burn is high and that is it's life limiting factor?

[crewmeal]

Isn't a variant of the B787 supposed to do the job of a long range B757, but with better fuel savings and performance. I'm pretty sure some smaller airports are raving about it because it means it can operate direct to long haul destinations. An example of this is Bristol to Florida without transiting Manchester for fuel.

[DADDY-OH!]

A UK operator recently completed an internal study of its B75W/B752/B73NG & B733/W fleets comparing fuel cost against yield per seat. The results were very surprising.

The best was the B75W followed by the B752 then came the B737 tribe.

It seems that it doesn't burn that much more fuel for the extra 46 seats of revenue per sector.

Is there anything Boeing or Airbus produce that fits in between the 2-class 160 seat B737 series & the 2-class 240 seat B787 series?

In that case, the B757 may well be in a class of its own....

[Jack1985]

In that case, the B757 may well be in a class of its own....

Precisely my point. :sad:

[PAXboy]

Yes, it may well be in a class of it's own - but Boeing are not going to be in a postion to capitalise on that as they have failed on the 78. It gives Airbus an opportunity to produce a competitor by developing one of their own models to that spec.

[jabird]

It gives Airbus an opportunity to produce a competitor by developing one of their own models to that spec.

Because the A380 and A350 haven't been plagued with delays either, have they?

I understand that the fuel burn is high and that is it's life limiting factor?

If that is the case, then surely it is age that is the limitation, not the aircraft itself?

I mentioned the cross-section efficiency (3-3 must be the best possible use of space at 6 per aisle, as even 3-4-3 is only 5 per aisle). Would you not also benefit from less drag by having such a slender profile?

However, surely the problem any potential 757 replacement has is that it is stuck as a hybrid between the core long haul and short haul fleets?

Hybrids can look good on all-round performance, but when you compare them for individual routes, they aren't so likely to come out top. And as this model is stuck in this limbo zone, can there ever be enough demand to justify the creation of an NG model?

[Phileas Fogg]

Surely the Tu-204 is already in situ to replace the B757!

http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acimages/tupolevtu204_oscarlabordasanchez.jpg

[Donkey497]

Surely the Tu-204 is already in situ to replace the B757!

Not with 80 fewer seats in 204 versus the 757 for the same configuration, plus an additional cockpit crewmember, not to mention the shorter range of the 204.

A more realistic option would be a Boeing re-visit of the 757 design once the 787 has some good solid performance history behind it. Once the 787 has lost all the bugs I think that there is a very serious case for Boeing to look at the practicalities of producing a, shall we say 757-clone, rather than a 757NG using the newer engine and construction technologies, weight saving materials, passenger comfort features and other efficiencies developed for the 787.

As an engineer myself, I know that simple substitution of one material for another is rarely as simple as it seems, but the work done now for the 787 and the niche that the 757 occupies is likely to make it far quicker, simpler and more cost effective to 87-ise the 57 design.

That's not to say that this will happen overnight or even within 12 months. What we all have to remember that it's only 8 yerars since the last 757 rolled off the line & somewhere in the region of 98% of the 757's made are still in service.

An aircraft is not like a car, the owners don't tend to change them every three or four years. They are more like a coach or a bus which is designed to run ~18 hours a day 7 days a week and will stay with the same company with proper maintenance for a decade or more before going on to at least two or three more owners before heading for scrap.

Put simply, there are too many 757's still in the air to merit the need for a new one at present. The only things that will change this is the type falling victim to unforeseen corrosion and the Type certificate being withdrawn as a result, or carriers suddenly finding a significant number of profitable long/narrow routes that drives up the basic hull costs of a second hand 757. Until we reach about 18 months before the bulk of the fleet reaches its wear-out/cycle fatigue life limit, don't expect any news on a true 757 replacement.

I do expect that Boeing are already looking at this very seriously, but if they told us, they'd have to kill us.......;)

[jabird]

Until we reach about 18 months before the bulk of the fleet reaches its wear-out/cycle fatigue life limit

Surely this goes against every accepted practice in the fleet development cycle?

If a product is viable, newer versions should be on a continuous upgrade cycle (whether through NG, new model or whatever), so each time an airline sells an older model or wants to open new routes, a new version is available.

If Boeing have not done this so far (or since 2005), then is there enough of a niche for this type to exist?

I note that Icelandair - surely the ultimate operator of medium-long, thin routes has gone for the 737 Max.

[theloudone]

I have it on good information that Airbus are looking into developing an A321 to cover the gap left by the 75.

[Phileas Fogg]

Surely the Tu-204 is already in situ to replace the B757!

Not with 80 fewer seats in 204 versus the 757 for the same configuration, plus an additional cockpit crewmember, not to mention the shorter range of the 204.

You mean B757's operate "single pilot"?

Tu-204SM

The aircraft's flight navigation system and avionics will permit a two-pilot crew.

[jabird]

You mean B757's operate "single pilot"?

I didn't know MOL was lining them up for his next fleet order:D

[Skipness One Echo]

The B757 is one of the least succesful if you look at sales. Indeed they're still building B737s, B747s and B767s. The A321 does most of what the B757 can do for less fuel consumption. The B757 is a little overpowered for most missions in comparison. For the longer range routes, well American are dropping B757 transatlantics with very few exceptions and United (Continental) are the last major user of that need.

There is nowhere near enough market for a B757 NG, it's too much aeroplane. The VC10 was an amazing machine but the later B707 did the majority of the same mission for much less cost.

[throw a dyce]

I wish Thomas Cook would replace their ones will anything that has more leg room.It's like sitting in the back of a 2+2 coupe.:uhoh:

[Denti]

Boeing promotes the 787 as the solution for thin longhaul routes and with the low passenger capacity it has of at most 250 but typically less in a two class outfit (boeing says 250 in one class, 210 in 2 class) it does fit that niche in a way. In fact many airlines now consider switching their 787-8 order to -9s as the -8 is simply too small for many routes. However boeings track record of on time delivery is rather sketchy of late, which is a problem there.

I don't see Airbus developing a new aircraft anytime soon, they are still extremely busy with their A350 which is behind schedule already and they want to branch that out into a family of different sized variants so there will be quite some developing work to be done after the first variant hits the market. They say the A321 NEO will be able to partways replace the 757 but that remains to be seen.

[jabird]

In fact many airlines now consider switching their 787-8 order to -9s as the -8 is simply too small for many routes.

Yes, but UA have still carved a niche for the EWR <> UK regionals, although quite a few of these are also operated with a 767, and not all are just single daily.

However, I often wonder - there are numerous long haul routes which either come and go (BHX-PHL, EDI-ATL etc), or which are often discussed here, but never start.

Let's use MAN-BOS as an example - operated briefly (05 ish?) by AA - was it 5x weekly to BOS then 2x to MIA? 757 was used on this sector. If a reliable 150 seat long haul machine was available, would it be used, or do the economics of crewing, airport costs etc mean this would never be viable. BOS perhaps not best example as it is within range of 73NGs, so perhaps MIA or CLT?

I'm assuming a mix of o&d and transfer to make any of the above viable.

[DADDY-OH!]

Skipness' & Theloudone.

The A321 cannot do anything near what a 757 can do, and a few 'tweeks' to an existing Airbus design will not replace a fantasticly capable aircraft.

The unique capabilities of the 757 are derived from its conception. It was designed as a B727 replacement, hence the phenomenal performance.

And as a comparison with the A321, some years ago I worked for an airline that was called in to provide a couple of 757's for a winter contract based in the Canary Islands. The routes operated where between the Canaries & the Scandanavian airfields at the top end of the Baltic, iirc, Umea & Lulea were 2 that I operated to. These were 6-7000' contaminated strips with 220 seat config'd aircraft. Our 757's easily carried the load non-stop for the 6.5 hr+ flight to Tenerife and/or Las Palmas, whereas the customer's (now demised Spanish scheduled carrier) much vaunted, brand-spanking new A321's couldn't match the 757's abilities. In fact their A321's had to tech stop! Once on the leg northbound & TWICE on the return leg southbound!!

Another time, I was based in Dublin & one of our regular routes was To/from Heraklion. Not a problem on the 757 but our base at Belfast used an A320/321 on the route & every time we were delayed it was because the Belfast aircraft couldn't get airborne for performance reasons so we had to carry their offloaded luggage. The A320/321 family were designed as 2-class hub-feeders for major scheduled carriers NOT high density 'coaches' for charter carriers, hence their sometimes woeful performance.

The 757 was conceived to operate 2-class 'shuttles' from Hot & High, Noise Sensitive, or Performance Challenging Airfields & long, thin 'pioneer' routes TransContinental and/or TransOceanic routes such as Europe to US East Coast, where it complements its stable mate the 767. The combination pioneered common type ratings & excellent flexibility of capacity ranging from 180 seat 757 to the 300+ 767-400, for the same lucrative routes flown by the same crews.

Airbus will NEVER change from their strategies of a Hub & Spoke mentality (ie. A318/319/320/321 feeding A330/340/350/380) just to steal Boeing's thunder. And Boeing as the philosophically 'Point to Point' specialists already know that they can only grow their 737 family so much before they have to re-visit the drawing board... or an existing design. IcelandAir are only reluctantly accepting the B737X. They would've liked new-build 757's!!

I was fortunate enough to be on a Customer Factory Tour at Everett in 2008 being shown the 787 prototypes & production line & I asked one of the senior sales officials who was showing us around if Boeing were ever going to re-open the 757 production line because of the capacity gap. He replied with a smile & said that if Boeing had a dollar for every 757 customer who had asked that then it would be financially viable to do so but everything was being done around the 787, however he did say that the tooling & jigs from the 757 were still in storage & that knowing Boeing as he did, there was probably someone in an office at Renton looking at adapting newly available technologies to existing designs.

An A321 that can seat 228 pax & fly non-stop Europe to JFK, EWR, BOS or IAD? I doubt it. We'd have seen it already.

[DaveReidUK]

I have it on good information that Airbus are looking into developing an A321 to cover the gap left by the 75It would be very surprising if Airbus, as a major manufacturer, wasn't continually doing design studies to look at market segments that its products don't currently address.

But, as has already been pointed out, the A321 (both current and A321neo) will never perform the 757's mission. Maybe re-engined and with a new wing, but that's not going to happen.

[on time all the time]

The B757 age is a big problem as there is nothing to replace it at the moment.
The pb with the B757 is its fuel consumption which is 1/3 more than the A321. And in this days it is all about fuel.

However it does jobs that the A321 can't do or struggles to do, such SSH flights. The i/b flight may require a fuel stop usually in Italy and a change of crew due to duty hours on the A321. That means sending a full crew on 1 way last minute tickets....very expensive. This is using a A321 with additional tanks.
The B757 does it without pb.
BJL is out of reach for the a321, the B757 does it.
JSI-LGW non stop is not possible on a fully laden A321. It is on a B757.
The B737 offers more flexibility but it still has not got the ease of the B757 in fulfilling intermediate tasks such as mid haul or short take off....
That is the reason Monarch hangs on to its last 3 B757 but not for long unfortunately. They will be gone by nov 14.

[spottilludrop]

And many have RB211 engines....best engine ever IMHO

[Skipness One Echo]

Actually the B737 and A321 *CAN* do most of the missions a B757 was used for at less cost, this is why Boeing couldn't sell any more. New sales went to the newer aircraft on the market, now they don't have the range to do everything a B757 could do, however they succeedes in sandwiching in the 75' between the larger twins and themselves. They made great design look over engineered. I love the B757 and I have flown on loads, but the numbers just don't add up for a new design. It would be the B767-400 all over again if they did.

Can you provide evidence Icelandair prefer new 1970s tech to a 21st century platform? What markets will the B737-Max be restricted on the FI network? They used the B737 and the B727 before that quite happily, the B757 was a capacity buy, not a performance buy.

[Phileas Fogg]

Does a longer range aircraft make for better economics?

In a previous life I worked for a UK DC10 operator, initially with DC10-10's we operated LON-BGR-LAX-BGR-LON, upon the arrival of the DC10-30's we were able to operate direct flights LON-LAX-LON but the costs of tankering the increased fuel loads for circa half of each journey ... it was cheaper to tech-stop for fuel in BGR in each direction whilst the punters got to stretch their legs, clear US immigration at a quiet airport and/or puff away on a cigarette or few!

[DADDY-OH!]

Skipness'

As far as 'evidence' goes that IcelandAir would have preferred a B757NG if such a model existed, yes I have.

Philleas'

Ahhh! The Laker Days? Standing by the pool in KBGR's Holiday Inn? Waiting to see a 3 engine contrail pass overhead heading eastbound? Or packing a bag if you didn't? Ex-Laker men were my mentors on the 757 in the mid-90's when we had a BGR 'mini-base'. Great pilots, great teachers, great men, great fun!

Does range matter? I think it plays a part. You have to be able to reach BGR in the first place. I don't think an A321 could reach BGR with a 233 seat Y-class load unless it went via Keflavik with a fuselage plug. IIRC an all Y-class A321 bulks out at 220 seats.

The key to survival of any airline is flexibility & adaptability. Half of that battle is the equipment capability. So what if a 757 burns slightly more fuel than the A321? Those extra fuel costs when offset against the extra revenue from the extra seats are greatly reduced. And as exampled earlier, if your A321 has to tech stop, those incurred costs reduce the difference further. They are 2 different aircraft for 2 different jobs! Look at it this way.

You have an airline looking at operating eg. Europe - East Coast US, Middle East & West Africa. Obviously major considerations such as crewing costs & capacity utilisation need critically accurate assessment & evaluation. What are your options? Airbus & Boeing. For that variety of routes, Airbus can offer the A321/A330 combination. Current Boeing types are pre-owned 757/767 products, albeit retro-fitted with new avionics, winglets & improved operating techniques & strategies to improve engine life & fuel efficiency.

Your A330's are great dedicated long haul aircraft. But what happens when there is are threats such as competition, regional or global recession, regional conflict or something like SARS? You face running your operation at a loss because your A330's aren't profitable if they are only 50-60% full. And you can't use the A321's because they aren't capable of the range with nearly full loads.

Enter your B757/767 Combo. If you can't fill a B767-400, put a -300 on it. Can't fill that? Put a -200 on it. If you can't fill a 767 of any class, then put B757 on it. Like I said, the key to an airline's survivability & profitability is adaptability & flexibility. But you MUST have the right tools, or tool, for the job.

[Hangar6]

Good to see these aircraft doing so many daily ops ex ROI to US east coast EI are leasing three ex Finnair this fall for SNn to Us whilst they await potential single aisle replacement for 757 , up to the manufacturers now as plenty of demand on thinner routes ex ROI these days

[DADDY-OH!]

Good, rational move by Aer Lingus.

[LNIDA]

Norwegians 738 are routinely do these routes including LPA/TFS to Tromso non stop, I agree the 757 is one of the best all round aircraft ever built but a bit greedy on fuel for much of what it was designed for, the 737 MAX is up to a MTOM OF 82.9t and a range that allows New York to London, which is more than long enough on a 73 !!

[DADDY-OH!]

LNIDA

But not London - New York non-stop.

[Skipness One Echo]

ROI to US, regional UK to US and a few European to US routes need a B757 as nothing else will do the job as well. However that's a niche market in double figures, Boeing would need substantial *MASS* market requirement to build a new B757 replacement.

It's not enough to justify the capital investment. Look at the poor sales of the B747SP, B767-400 and the passenger B747-8i.

[jabird]

But not London - New York non-stop.

The SNN stop is good enough for BA ex LCY of all places, and they use the preclearance to smooth it out.

Ironic that the one route you'd expect to pride itself on saving time by NOT having a tech stop still does so!

Surely the problem for SNN is the O&D market is dispersed over such a wide area. If DUB was on that side, given the differential in taxes, wouldn't that make for quite a hub - narrow and heavy?

[DADDY-OH!]

Skipness

The B747SP was only bought by the likes of TWA, PanAm, SAA, QANTAS etc. for specific routes, hence the small production numbers.

The B747-8i cannot compete with the B777ER/LR for economics & performance so it is a poor seller.

The B767-400 was too close in capability to the new B777-200's being produced at the time so customers went for a new type. But the operators of that model also use B777's so have the option to reduce capacity by putting a B767-400 on the route to keep it profitable.

EI are taking ex-Finnair B757's to use on the North Atlantic routes because their A330's can't make the routes pay & Airbus hasn't got a reduced capacity alternative with sufficient range. The US majors use 757's with regularity on 'thin' North Atlantic routes & I bet BA wish they hadn't got rid of their B757's as quickly as they did. I believe their Open Skies B757's are quite full & a wingletted, 100 seat, all business/first class B757 would be able to make LHR-JFK, EWR, BOS & even IAD non-stop WITHOUT the costly tech. stop in SNN.

As more regions in the emerging markets open up, so airports will expand & develop in those areas. AA are going to have a problem finding a replacement that can cover routes deep into the emerging South Americas like a B757 from their hubs in MIA, LAX & DFW. And there will be many other vulnerable routes that will only become apparent as the B757's start to get withdrawn.

Why do you thing the freight/courier operators are hoovering the available B757's up?

[SCANDIC]

I really do hope they come up with a plan for a NG 757 that would be very exciting.

[jabird]

I believe their Open Skies B757's are quite full & a wingletted, 100 seat, all business/first class B757 would be able to make LHR-JFK, EWR, BOS & even IAD non-stop WITHOUT the costly tech. stop in SNN.

Are you suggesting BA would lay a "no plebs" service alongside the existing mixed class routes that are already operating from LHR?

Or did you mean LCY - in which case surely runway length is as much of an issue as maximum range?

[DADDY-OH!]

Scandinavia.

It would wouldn't it.

Jabird.

I find the word 'plebs' offensive. By your inference, are you suggesting that anyone who is a BA Economy class pax. a 'pleb'?

At 4,900', LCY is too short to do JFK direct but 6-7,000' would easily oblige. How many seats does the A319 on the BA001?

An all J/F class 757 with 100 seats leaving JFK/BOS/EWR/IAD at 1900L (0000 Z) would arrive in LHR/STN/LTN/LGW or wherever the owning airline's target customer base wanted to, at around 06-0700L. Going westbound, leaving London at 0800 L, it would get in to the US at around 10-1100L.

I don't know how long the tech. stop in SNN is but I would say around an hour & an A319 cruises at say, M0.74-76.

A 100-120 seat 757 could probably go from any of the London area airports (& I include Farnborough & Biggin Hill) non-stop to the eastern US at around M0.77-0.8 saving sector & turnaround time.

Any airline, if it was to operate such a route, would have to conduct through research to find out its clients needs. And careful negotiation to have a dedicated departure/arrival terminal ex-UK to satisfy the US Port of Entry requirements on offer in The Irish Republic.

[Phileas Fogg]

DADDY-OH!

A ticketed airliner wouldn't be departing Biggin Hill anytime day or night ... Biggin Hill Airport has a court injunction in place against it preventing it from accepting commercial airline (ticketed) operations.

[DADDY-OH!]

Thanks Phileas.

Consider me enlightened. Does Farnborough have a similar restriction?

[Skipness One Echo]

The B767-400 was too close in capability to the new B777-200's being produced at the time so customers went for a new type
That's not the case, the B767-400 was targetted firmly against the smaller A330-200 which proved to be much more capable.

The question you need to answer is how big is the market? Thus far we have some AA routes that the A321 can't do, some UA routes the A321 can't so and nothing with FI that the B737-MAX can't do. Put a number on it.

They built some 1,050 Boeing 757s versus 3,132 legacy and some 4,400 NGs already delivered, and that's without mentioning the A321.

So how many NG B757s do you see selling given AA have already gone with the A321 and B737-800?

[DADDY-OH!]

Actually, Phileas, re-reading my previous post, I was citing Biggin Hill & Farnborough that a lightly loaded B757 (100-120 exec.seated) could make those airfields direct to the US east coast. It was a performance inference as LCY is a little on the short side for a direct east coast US trip.

[Phileas Fogg]

DADDY-OH!,

I recall reading, perhaps Wikipedia, that Farnboro may be restricted to biz jets and/or private movements only.

[DADDY-OH!]

Well, Skippy,

I disagree on the B767-400 was 'specifically targeted' against the A330-200. I've seen many A330 operators compete on existing B777 routes. And many operators of both types interchange aircraft dependant upon required load trends.

Capacity & range wise I think Boeing saw a capacity-gap between the B767-300 & B777-200 & stretched a proven workhorse instead of scaling down a relatively newer model that would probably be over-powered/fuel inefficient for the capacity required.

As for FI, I think their B737MAX would probably struggle to do their KEF-SEA schedule & Canary Islands holiday routes with a full, profit generating load. Both of those must be close to 7 hour sectors, if not more.

Have you heard what EI are doing?

[jabird]

I find the word 'plebs' offensive. By your inference, are you suggesting that anyone who is a BA Economy class pax. a 'pleb'?

Lighten up - If you are suggesting laying on an aircraft operating between the same airport pair, just so one set of passengers completely avoids the other, it wouldn't be inappropriate to say this was being done to separate the "snobs" from the "plebs".

At 4,900', LCY is too short to do JFK direct but 6-7,000' would easily oblige. How many seats does the A319 on the BA001?

32

An all J/F class 757 // arrive in LHR/STN/LTN/LGW or wherever the owning airline's target customer base wanted to, at around 06-0700L.

This model was tried by three different airlines between LTN & STN and none of them could sustain it, although the economic climate didn't help. Or should it have helped - after all, MOL keeps banging on about a depressed economy meaning people keep flying FR more, so why didn't people trade "down" to considerably cheaper EOS/Maxjet/Silverjet? IIRC, Eos used 757s and the other two 767s?

So we're back to the same question - are there enough routes that the 757 can serve? Yes, absolutely. Are there enough routes where the 757 is the best aircraft to have? clearly not.

[Tagron]

It is correct that Farnborough's planning consent does not permit the operation of scheduled or charter airline movements. There is a also a weight restriction of (I believe) 50,000kgs though there are alleviations for the the executive versions of the 737 and A319. B757 operations from LCY would definitely be a step too far.

[NWSRG]

Once the 737 is replaced by the 797 (or whatever they call it...), expect Boeing to do a larger version to replace the 757. I suspect that a 737-700+ size model will be the smallest of the 797 family...no -600 replacement (dropped with the MAX anyway).

So a 797-7 to fit the 73G/738 market.
A 797-8 to replace 739.
A 797-9 with larger wing and more powerful engines to get into 757 terrritory. That also opens the way to a 797-10 to replace the 757-300.

Considering that these could also replace any remaining A300 / A310 / 762, it might be a compelling product.

[DADDY-OH!]

You might have something there, NWSRG.

Do you think it will be CTR with the 777/787?

Sorry, Jabird. I couldn't tell if you were having a laugh or a genuine jerk.

Granted, EOS/SilverJet/MaxJet have all tried this & failed. The US majors have made the B757 work on 2-Class routes across the pond, as have, in the past, BA. Now Aer Lingus have started to dabble & follow the US model.

[NWSRG]

Do you think it will be CTR with the 777/787?

Well with modern glass cockpits, and software that can tune the flight control feel, all the big jets are getting more and more similar anyway.

Probably not full CTR, but minimal differences training?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "The SNN stop is good enough for BA ex LCY of all places, and they use the preclearance to smooth it out.

Ironic that the one route you'd expect to pride itself on saving time by NOT having a tech stop still does so!"

Would imagine that the convenience of pre-clearance at SNN more than outweighs the inconvenience of the tech stop bearing in mind the hassle stress and aggravation of border control at international arrivals at JFK because of the numbers involved and the consequent long queues.



BTW, all this talk of "plebs" is bringing up images of the "Thatcher" gates at Downing Street, and whether cabinet ministers can cycle through them or have to get off and walk.

[Skipness One Echo]

The US majors have made the B757 work on 2-Class routes across the pond, as have, in the past, BA. Now Aer Lingus have started to dabble & follow the US model.
Actually in fairness BA sure as **** didn't make it work (!) Aer Lingus are joining a party that's well past winding down. American are withdrawing the B757 from Europe, once Delta got NWA they also pulled much (possibly all?) transatlantic B757 flying leaving Continental / United using the aircraft via Bangor way too often in the winter headwinds. Having said that for a ROI niche to serve traditional seasonal markets to the US east coast it's almost perfect.

However no one has yet put a number on the size of this supposed B757NG fantasy market that the best brains at Boeing and Airbus have missed.
Anyone?

[jabird]

BTW, all this talk of "plebs" is bringing up images of the "Thatcher" gates at Downing Street, and whether cabinet ministers can cycle through them or have to get off and walk.

That was the idea. I'd hardly heard the word for a decade before then. The p word is all about "them and us", and that's why it caused so much outrage. The act of having a rant at police officers would have yielded an apology and that would have been it.

As for air travel, premium and cattle cabins are going to be around for a while yet (I hope you don't find the word cattle offensive - is horse better?). However, when you start segregating entire aircraft for business class only - from the same airports as already operated by the same airline, that imho would be a step too far.

I don't think it will happen though - having 3 cabins always gives a bit of flexibility to yield manage and upgrade if overbooked - not so flexible if you'd have to offload people to a completely different plane.

[jabird]

However no one has yet put a number on the size of this supposed B757NG fantasy market that the best brains at Boeing and Airbus have missed.
Anyone?

Fantasy market? Where's Silver when you need him?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "As for air travel, premium and cattle cabins are going to be around for a while yet (I hope you don't find the word cattle offensive - is horse better?). However, when you start segregating entire aircraft for business class only - from the same airports as already operated by the same airline, that imho would be a step too far.

I don't think it will happen though - having 3 cabins always gives a bit of flexibility to yield manage and upgrade if overbooked - not so flexible if you'd have to offload people to a completely different plane."

Agreed, it's not cost-effective. Separate business class services like BA's LCY-SNN-JFK are for a small niche market and have to be carefully planned. Running this type of service out of LTN/STN just doesn't cut it!

Quote: "Fantasy market? Where's Silver when you need him?"

Yes indeed, where are you Silver?!

[jabird]

Yes indeed, where are you Silver?!

Trying to re-start SilverJet, and use the huge profits this will generate to fund a £100bn Shifting Silver Sands Spaceport in the Thames?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Trying to re-start SilverJet, and use the huge profits this will generate to fund a £100bn Shifting Silver Sands Spaceport in the Thames?"

Ho ho very good, it's like fairytales: "Once upon a time...."

[DADDY-OH!]

Meanwhile... back on the thread...

In today's world, the only replacement for a B757 is another B757.

For tomorrow, as Boeing won't re-open the production line, I'm hoping the gap between the B737MAX & the B787-8 will be bridged by whatever Boeing have on their current drawing boards.

In the meantime, I'll keep polling my pre-historic, gas-guzzling, 'inefficient' hulk of 1970's technology scrap metal around the skies, doing things only an A321/B737 pilot can dream about, for as long as my employer has them.

Goodnight all.

[PAXboy]

Multiple variants of the 73 will be far cheaper and no other permutation possible in this era. It's money to expand and adapt what you have or zillions to start afresh.

The companies (A + B) do not want a re-run of the DC-10 / L-1011 problem. Which is why they spent so long ensuring that only one of them built a double deck leviathan and the other reworked an old frame. Not to mention that the carriers would not have allowed such a clash and the carriers want more similarity of ops, not less.

The 757 was beautiful in so many regards and will be missed.

[Heathrow Harry]

nice aeroplane - but eventually squeezed by cheaper 737's at the bottom and 767's and 777's at the top

I doubt there will be a 1-1 replacement - Boeing have to sort out the 787, then replace the 747 and by then the 777 and the 737 will be up for repalcement

[Torquelink]

I understand that the 737 replacement that Boeing were considering prior to the launch of the MAX included a variant which pretty much covered the 757 size / range envelope and bridged the gap to 787-8. The decision to go for the MAX, as a result of the success of the NEO, meant a direct 757 replacement from Boeing will probably have to wait for the MAX replacement toward the end of the next decade.

Re Icelandair, they originally ordered 787-8s as a 757 replacement, thought better of it and these orders were, allegedly, novated to Norwegian.

[MarkD]

I think Airbus could have done well with an A310-400/A330-100 (capacity of a 310-300 with A330/340 cockpit and Trent 500s for commonality with 345/346 operators). The sell vs 757 would have been freight - the ability to pack Airbus twins with LD3 has served operators like Aer Lingus when passenger margins were tough. Compare to BA who downsized BHX-JFK from 767 to 757 and shortly after that to nowt.