UK charter airlines 321 as 757 replacement?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: west yorks
Age: 47
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK charter airlines 321 as 757 replacement?
Seems first Monarch now TCX trying to replace their remaining 757 fleet with 321s. Must be very difficult for them, more so with the rise of Sharm and Hurghada, as far as I know even the 321 with extra tank might struggle with a fully laden pax load and all their luggage too, especially to likes of NCL. OK LGW might be a squeeze, bring pax home but leve their dirty washing behind, so as to avoid tech stops. Im thinking of the 321s performance at high temperature airfiles like SSH with a full load.
I think the 757 is so very difficult for IT UK charter ops to replace. Some routes like the Banjul route, cannot be done with full 321 but can with a 757. A A330 is also a bit big for banjul or sharm from regional airports so what will the charter ailrines do without the verstile 757 which has served them so very well all thee years!!!
I think the 757 is so very difficult for IT UK charter ops to replace. Some routes like the Banjul route, cannot be done with full 321 but can with a 757. A A330 is also a bit big for banjul or sharm from regional airports so what will the charter ailrines do without the verstile 757 which has served them so very well all thee years!!!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Age: 36
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem is the 757 within charter airlines are at age and are nearing the end of their leases, Operational life even... And the only real replacement for it in terms of distance is the 738/9.. or looking bigger at the 330 767 which can be limited to which airfields they can operate from like you said.
I think once the 787 comes into the picture we will see an easier life for SSH operations.. or even when we see what the 797 will bring us..
A321 is a nice aircraft yes, but very limited.
I think once the 787 comes into the picture we will see an easier life for SSH operations.. or even when we see what the 797 will bring us..
A321 is a nice aircraft yes, but very limited.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A321 is a nice aircraft yes, but very limited.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: west yorks
Age: 47
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but increasingly charter airlines are placing increasing emphasis on mid haul routes, particularly ssh etc from regional airports. This has become important as the no frills sector steals more of their traditional work. The 757 seems the only option for the moment for regional ops to Egypt and for example, Banjul, Cabo Verde even recently. the 332 would be too large and anyway is needed for long haul IT work so how the 321 can do this important regioal SSH work etc. I know with max capacity in charter config plus everyone taking luggage for their two week holiday and high temps at the foreign airfields, well as much as airlines like TCX and MON would like to replace the 757 with the cheaper to run 321, they seem to struggle. 757 still does majprity of regional work to SSH etc. They have a problem that no manufacturer has an imediately suitable replacement. The lighter weight 321 even with enhancements will struggle from 30 degree plus temps out of SSH or BJL to say even EMA!!! pax may get taken home but will their pushairs get left behind? I fear if it means no expensive tech stop, luggage left behind may become a problem in future if the 321 is utilised for missions it isnt designed for.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer your question bluntly; there isn't a jet out there that can reliably do what the UK charter airlines want it to do.
The 757 is unique in being as over powered as it is. She's a beautiful machine and I believe that she now never makes a full power take-off, even when fully loaded. Or can someone correct me?
It's ability to fly 235 people from Egypt to the UK in the height of the summer and laughing down the runway at the challenge can't be met by any other plane out there at this moment in time.
Reports suggest that the 797 will actually come at a later date than planned. The 757, as previously mentioned, only has a certain life span and the most economical alternative is the A321. However if you're an all Boeing carrier (TUI for example) then the 738/9ER is the better option.
Does anyone know if the 9ER has the legs for Egypt from smaller UK airports?
The 767/330/787 is perfect for MAN, LGW and BHX (when demand returns anyway) but for the smaller airports like BRS, NCL and GLA I would hazard a guess that they'll either just reduce capacity to 189 seats or increase frequency.
At the moment I think it's the least of their worries with 757s still plodding along and Egypt demand so low.
Bring on the 787...
The 757 is unique in being as over powered as it is. She's a beautiful machine and I believe that she now never makes a full power take-off, even when fully loaded. Or can someone correct me?
It's ability to fly 235 people from Egypt to the UK in the height of the summer and laughing down the runway at the challenge can't be met by any other plane out there at this moment in time.
Reports suggest that the 797 will actually come at a later date than planned. The 757, as previously mentioned, only has a certain life span and the most economical alternative is the A321. However if you're an all Boeing carrier (TUI for example) then the 738/9ER is the better option.
Does anyone know if the 9ER has the legs for Egypt from smaller UK airports?
The 767/330/787 is perfect for MAN, LGW and BHX (when demand returns anyway) but for the smaller airports like BRS, NCL and GLA I would hazard a guess that they'll either just reduce capacity to 189 seats or increase frequency.
At the moment I think it's the least of their worries with 757s still plodding along and Egypt demand so low.
Bring on the 787...
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 757 is unique in being as over powered as it is. She's a beautiful machine and I believe that she now never makes a full power take-off, even when fully loaded. Or can someone correct me?
or even when we see what the 797 will bring us
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read something in the week about Mr Boeing saying that the development of the 737 would go ahead of anything to do with the 797.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
De-rating is done to increase engine life, reduce noise and reduce fuel burn in specific segments of a climb. It doesn't particularly have anything to do with the age of the airframe.
Where runway lengths permit it, de-rating (which is an assumed temperature method in any event,) is nearly always performed. During the climb fixed rate de-rates are also utilized.
I fly some of the highest time/cycle 757's in the world, and can assure you that where required full power take off's are routinely performed. Conversely, where possible, fully de-rated take off's are also routinely performed, as is everything in-between.
In the 210-230 seat transport category the A321 is significantly better on fuel burn due to a combination of lighter operating weights, less powerful engines and more modern design applications. On a typical 2-4 hour (Mediterranean) run, the direct seat mile cost is very much in the A321's favour.
On a 5-6 hour sector, the 757 comes into its own. Despite higher fuel burns, greater fuel capacity and better operating performance gives the aircraft the flexibility to operate 3000 mile sectors (including ETOPS and trans-oceanic sectors,) in this seat capacity bracket with no problems at all.
The 757-200 can operate a roundtrip to Innsbruck in the morning, and then set off for West Africa or North America (non-stop) in the afternoon. It is a very versatile aircraft, but in certain popular market segements it is not as cost efficient as newer aircraft specifically designed for those market segments. For operators with a need to operate outside of those short range markets to destinations such as Egypt, West Africa, North Eastern USA and Eastern Canada and the Middle East, it still works very well. This is why traditional 757 operators continue to keep these aircraft in their fleets.
The 787 (although a much bigger aircraft and more in the 767 category) brings with it its own new generation set of technologies and fuel efficiencies. Also of significant importance, the construction technologies mean that unlike the 757, A321, and everything that has gone before, the airframe is not life limited by pressurization cycles. This will make the 787 a very flexible proposition on short and mid range routes as well as the headline ultra long range routes that it is better known for.
The problem of course is that airlines expected to have been operating this type in their fleets now. Delays of 3-5 years have meant that transitional fleet replacement plans have been thrown into disarray, with older airframes having to be kept in service longer than planned to cover the market segments the 787 is intended to operate in.
Where runway lengths permit it, de-rating (which is an assumed temperature method in any event,) is nearly always performed. During the climb fixed rate de-rates are also utilized.
I fly some of the highest time/cycle 757's in the world, and can assure you that where required full power take off's are routinely performed. Conversely, where possible, fully de-rated take off's are also routinely performed, as is everything in-between.
In the 210-230 seat transport category the A321 is significantly better on fuel burn due to a combination of lighter operating weights, less powerful engines and more modern design applications. On a typical 2-4 hour (Mediterranean) run, the direct seat mile cost is very much in the A321's favour.
On a 5-6 hour sector, the 757 comes into its own. Despite higher fuel burns, greater fuel capacity and better operating performance gives the aircraft the flexibility to operate 3000 mile sectors (including ETOPS and trans-oceanic sectors,) in this seat capacity bracket with no problems at all.
The 757-200 can operate a roundtrip to Innsbruck in the morning, and then set off for West Africa or North America (non-stop) in the afternoon. It is a very versatile aircraft, but in certain popular market segements it is not as cost efficient as newer aircraft specifically designed for those market segments. For operators with a need to operate outside of those short range markets to destinations such as Egypt, West Africa, North Eastern USA and Eastern Canada and the Middle East, it still works very well. This is why traditional 757 operators continue to keep these aircraft in their fleets.
The 787 (although a much bigger aircraft and more in the 767 category) brings with it its own new generation set of technologies and fuel efficiencies. Also of significant importance, the construction technologies mean that unlike the 757, A321, and everything that has gone before, the airframe is not life limited by pressurization cycles. This will make the 787 a very flexible proposition on short and mid range routes as well as the headline ultra long range routes that it is better known for.
The problem of course is that airlines expected to have been operating this type in their fleets now. Delays of 3-5 years have meant that transitional fleet replacement plans have been thrown into disarray, with older airframes having to be kept in service longer than planned to cover the market segments the 787 is intended to operate in.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Only an ocean away
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a very interesting on Flight Global yesterday regarding US Airways requesting that Airbus give the A321NEO enough range do do transatlantic in order to directly replace their 757 fleet.
It really makes a great deal of sense. US Airways stated that they can't get their hands on enough 757s now with the likes of UPS and DHL buying up every aircraft going. I've always felt that Boeing closed the 757 production line too early as a knee jerk reaction to the general downturn in aircraft production at the time. I very much doubt the line could be reopened now, but I dare say if it were then Boeing would still be receiving new orders for the 75.
It really makes a great deal of sense. US Airways stated that they can't get their hands on enough 757s now with the likes of UPS and DHL buying up every aircraft going. I've always felt that Boeing closed the 757 production line too early as a knee jerk reaction to the general downturn in aircraft production at the time. I very much doubt the line could be reopened now, but I dare say if it were then Boeing would still be receiving new orders for the 75.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought SSH would have been on the downward spirral with the current probs in the area. It's only a matter of time (weeks,months, 1 year, 5 years, 10 years) before some gaddafi loyalists go looking to blow some tourists up). Or am i wrong?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flightglobal piece on US Airways and A321NEO is here. I agree with Drakestream - if Airbus can deliver an A321NEO which can provide North Atlantic capability then they stand to win some big replacement markets.
Boeing stopped making the 757 for the very practical reason that people had eased right back on buying them; not many ordered or produced in its last years.
But the 757 only went out of production a few years ago, they have plenty of life to be around in considerable numbers until the next generation come along.
The parcel shifters are interested in it, sure, but generally in the high time, low priced ones, to strip out and run a limited number of daily hours. If US Airways are whining that they are buying up everything then I suspect they are saying that about the low priced ones.
As soon as the 787 gets going in the US market I suspect you will see a good number of 757 coming on to the market as US carriers switch their fleets around, and this is a major throttling of the 757 secondhand market at present.
The A321NEO appears to have all the necessary to turn current A321 marginal flights like UK-Hurghada, or Canary Islands-Scandinavia, into straightforward operations easily in its capability. I would expect the European holiday operators to be among its early purchasers.
The irony of the end of 757 production was that the assembly space at Renton was reallocated to the anticipated demand for the 737-900ER. But this has been a poor seller, although the smaller sizes continue of course to be very popular. Boeing hasn't had a lot of luck with this biggest 737 - the original 737-900 never got many orders, and after the substantial rework as the 737-900ER it hasn't been that much better. Some who went for it seem to have stepped back, and reordered 737-800s instead. For some reason, Boeing seem to have had this issue with a number of their stretches (eg 757-300, 767-400) in recent times.
But the 757 only went out of production a few years ago, they have plenty of life to be around in considerable numbers until the next generation come along.
The parcel shifters are interested in it, sure, but generally in the high time, low priced ones, to strip out and run a limited number of daily hours. If US Airways are whining that they are buying up everything then I suspect they are saying that about the low priced ones.
As soon as the 787 gets going in the US market I suspect you will see a good number of 757 coming on to the market as US carriers switch their fleets around, and this is a major throttling of the 757 secondhand market at present.
The A321NEO appears to have all the necessary to turn current A321 marginal flights like UK-Hurghada, or Canary Islands-Scandinavia, into straightforward operations easily in its capability. I would expect the European holiday operators to be among its early purchasers.
The irony of the end of 757 production was that the assembly space at Renton was reallocated to the anticipated demand for the 737-900ER. But this has been a poor seller, although the smaller sizes continue of course to be very popular. Boeing hasn't had a lot of luck with this biggest 737 - the original 737-900 never got many orders, and after the substantial rework as the 737-900ER it hasn't been that much better. Some who went for it seem to have stepped back, and reordered 737-800s instead. For some reason, Boeing seem to have had this issue with a number of their stretches (eg 757-300, 767-400) in recent times.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern ireland
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Replacement for the B757
Its all very well talking about charter routes but it seems to me that the bulk of the remaining B757's are now doing long haul - look at American, Delta, Continental and US Air.
What will replace that need?
I note that Sun Country can do Gatwick from the US and Air Canada can do Newfoundland to LHR with the A319 and Alaska do Hawai with the B737-900.Are they options?
What will replace that need?
I note that Sun Country can do Gatwick from the US and Air Canada can do Newfoundland to LHR with the A319 and Alaska do Hawai with the B737-900.Are they options?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A321NEO appears to have all the necessary to turn current A321 marginal flights like UK-Hurghada, or Canary Islands-Scandinavia, into straightforward operations easily in its capability.
I note that Sun Country can do Gatwick from the US and Air Canada can do Newfoundland to LHR with the A319 and Alaska do Hawai with the B737-900.Are they options?
Its all very well talking about charter routes but it seems to me that the bulk of the remaining B757's are now doing long haul - look at American, Delta, Continental and US Air.
Not at all. There are almost 500 757s in the fleets of the current 5 largest US majors, nearly half the total number built. Less than 10% of these do long haul ops daily. The vast majority are on US domestic routes. Most US carriers have created a differently-configured subset in their fleet for international work - in part so they don't have to do all the ETOPS documentation etc on all of these aircraft when most stay in the US.