757 replacement?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact many airlines now consider switching their 787-8 order to -9s as the -8 is simply too small for many routes.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Behind you all the way!
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I have it on good information that Airbus are looking into developing an A321 to cover the gap left by the 75
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hove
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 43
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 25th Mar 2013 at 11:56.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Behind you all the way!
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: dublin
Age: 64
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B757 and EI
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
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daddy ho
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 !!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 43
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
It's not enough to justify the capital investment. Look at the poor sales of the B747SP, B767-400 and the passenger B747-8i.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 26th Mar 2013 at 17:22.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But not London - New York non-stop.
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?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Behind you all the way!
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Or did you mean LCY - in which case surely runway length is as much of an issue as maximum range?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Behind you all the way!
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.