Are A321s taking over US transcon?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are A321s taking over US transcon?
Jetblue ordered additional machines this week. Delta ordered (new!) ones recently, AA starts flying them shortly, US had them already.. How about United? (Jetblue sharklets go around / low pass, yesterday).
Airbus A321 Jetblue Sharklets Go Around at Hamburg Airport N905JB - YouTube
Airbus A321 Jetblue Sharklets Go Around at Hamburg Airport N905JB - YouTube
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My guess is that it's because the 757 and MD8x are out of production and the fleets of them are not getting any younger... and the 737-900 hasn't got the range. But I'm no expert. 
short flights long nights
I have never understood why Boeing stopped production of the 757 or a 757 class of aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Woodlands
Age: 64
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 757 was intended to replace the 727, but for some reason Boeing got its market research wrong. Rather than building a 150 seat replacement for the 150 seat 727, Boeing made the 757 a 200 seater. As it happened, most of the airlines that were replacing their 727s didn't want a 200 seater, but wanted a 150 seater. Boeing did not immediately have one available, and this provided a market opening that was ultimately taken up by Airbus, who built the A320, and by McDonnell Douglas, who built a stretched version of the DC-9 the MD-80. This was the market opening that allowed Airbus to move from a niche player in the airliner world to being clear number two in the 1990s, and to perhaps even be number one today. Boeing eventually filled this gap with a new 150 seat version of the 737, but a few years later.
Although it missed its intended market, the 757 is a superb aircraft. This was largely because the engineers did a really good job, and the aircraft ended up having much longer range than it would have needed for the 727 replacement role. Part of the reason for this is that the engine that Rolls-Royce designed for the 757, the RB211-535, turned out to be a fantastic piece of engineering. The aircraft also managed good fuel economy, although it was not especially comfortable for passengers. The aircraft does very well in "hot and high" conditions, where air conditions at the airport make landing tricky due to altitude or climate. We routinely used it at airports such as Aspen Eagle and such for it performance and to date has to be one of my favorite aircrafts I have flown. Later It became extremely popular for European charter operators for both European and trans-Atlantic routes, and also very popular for US airlines operating coast to coast. This was a successful market niche, although not nearly as big a niche as would have had it been a genuine 727 replacement.
The lower end of the market now is being taken by the 737-800 or the Airbus A320/321 and the higher end will be taken by the new technology Boeing 787 or 777X and Airbus 350.
Although it missed its intended market, the 757 is a superb aircraft. This was largely because the engineers did a really good job, and the aircraft ended up having much longer range than it would have needed for the 727 replacement role. Part of the reason for this is that the engine that Rolls-Royce designed for the 757, the RB211-535, turned out to be a fantastic piece of engineering. The aircraft also managed good fuel economy, although it was not especially comfortable for passengers. The aircraft does very well in "hot and high" conditions, where air conditions at the airport make landing tricky due to altitude or climate. We routinely used it at airports such as Aspen Eagle and such for it performance and to date has to be one of my favorite aircrafts I have flown. Later It became extremely popular for European charter operators for both European and trans-Atlantic routes, and also very popular for US airlines operating coast to coast. This was a successful market niche, although not nearly as big a niche as would have had it been a genuine 727 replacement.
The lower end of the market now is being taken by the 737-800 or the Airbus A320/321 and the higher end will be taken by the new technology Boeing 787 or 777X and Airbus 350.
Last edited by jimmyg; 3rd Nov 2013 at 01:26.
Boeing stopped production of the 757 for the very good reason that airlines stopped buying it. The last 50 built were spread over three years, early 2002 to early 2005, that's less than 1.5 a month, and the space at Renton was more worthwhile building 737NGs, which were in high demand. The last incarnation of the 757, the series -300, had particularly flopped commercially.
The airlines stopped buying it because it was expensive on fuel per seat-mile.
When the aircraft was first designed by Boeing it was a joint project with the 767. Boeing's initial hope was the 757 would replace the 737, and the 767-200 replace the 727-200. This seemed excessive, and turned out so. However, for some time it was not used as a US transcontinental aircraft, this came much later, and the scheduled transatlantic flights later still, although it did some pioneering transatlantic charter operations for European holiday flight operators over to Orlando and the Caribbean, stopping at Gander or Bangor to refuel. But the two major pioneer operators, Eastern and British Airways, used it on decidedly short/middle range operations.
The airlines stopped buying it because it was expensive on fuel per seat-mile.
When the aircraft was first designed by Boeing it was a joint project with the 767. Boeing's initial hope was the 757 would replace the 737, and the 767-200 replace the 727-200. This seemed excessive, and turned out so. However, for some time it was not used as a US transcontinental aircraft, this came much later, and the scheduled transatlantic flights later still, although it did some pioneering transatlantic charter operations for European holiday flight operators over to Orlando and the Caribbean, stopping at Gander or Bangor to refuel. But the two major pioneer operators, Eastern and British Airways, used it on decidedly short/middle range operations.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA A321 will start will start A321 flights JFK-LAX in 2 months
Make reservations Sunday: American?s new A321-Transcon schedules go live this weekend! - AAdvantageGeek
A complete 4 class long haul product on these small machines it seems..
American Airlines new aircraft cabin interior tour - Airbus A321 and Boeing 777-300 - YouTube
Make reservations Sunday: American?s new A321-Transcon schedules go live this weekend! - AAdvantageGeek
A complete 4 class long haul product on these small machines it seems..
American Airlines new aircraft cabin interior tour - Airbus A321 and Boeing 777-300 - YouTube
WHMB has pretty much nailed it. Boeing killed the 757 because airlines stopped buying it, and the 757-300 was a major flop.
The 757 had an interesting life cycle - originally planned to be ~150 seats, launch customers BA and Eastern convinced Boeing to up it to ~180 passengers which turned out to be too big, at least at EIS. It struggled for orders for several years after EIS and there were rumors that it would be cancelled when there was a major shift in airline strategy that turned the 757 into a hot seller through the 1990s. Unfortunately another shift in strategy after 9/11 turned the 757 into a dud (just as the -300 version was coming on-line). Soon the bean counters couldn't justify all that floor space to build one or two airplanes per month and it was cancelled.
The other aspect of the 757 demise was the 737-900 - it could carry a similar passenger load with similar fuel burn and operating costs, but cost the airlines a whole lot less to buy (there were several aspects of the 757 that made it relatively expensive to build). The 737-900ER may not quite have the legs to operate coast to coast 365 days a year, but the MAX should address that.
Ultimately Boeing built 1050 757s - which may pale compared to the 737 and A320 series, is still not that shabby. Market share was pretty close to 50-50 for the Rolls and Pratt engines - the difference being Rolls was spread over dozens of operators, while Pratt had a handful of operators that had a huge number of airplanes.
The 757 had an interesting life cycle - originally planned to be ~150 seats, launch customers BA and Eastern convinced Boeing to up it to ~180 passengers which turned out to be too big, at least at EIS. It struggled for orders for several years after EIS and there were rumors that it would be cancelled when there was a major shift in airline strategy that turned the 757 into a hot seller through the 1990s. Unfortunately another shift in strategy after 9/11 turned the 757 into a dud (just as the -300 version was coming on-line). Soon the bean counters couldn't justify all that floor space to build one or two airplanes per month and it was cancelled.
The other aspect of the 757 demise was the 737-900 - it could carry a similar passenger load with similar fuel burn and operating costs, but cost the airlines a whole lot less to buy (there were several aspects of the 757 that made it relatively expensive to build). The 737-900ER may not quite have the legs to operate coast to coast 365 days a year, but the MAX should address that.
Ultimately Boeing built 1050 757s - which may pale compared to the 737 and A320 series, is still not that shabby. Market share was pretty close to 50-50 for the Rolls and Pratt engines - the difference being Rolls was spread over dozens of operators, while Pratt had a handful of operators that had a huge number of airplanes.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Woodlands
Age: 64
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It this not the opening in part that gave Airbus 320/321 and opportunity for success upon which it has built?
It will be interesting to see what roll the 737-900 max will take. Will it be too little to late? Many airlines will opt for it in order to keep a single manufacturer type. I guess the order books will tell with time.
It will be interesting to see what roll the 737-900 max will take. Will it be too little to late? Many airlines will opt for it in order to keep a single manufacturer type. I guess the order books will tell with time.
Last edited by jimmyg; 4th Nov 2013 at 03:07.
The A321 effectively killed off the 757 because it carries as many passengers for a much lower cost. It doesn't have the range of the 757, but very few operators need that range.
Proof that it's not really the laws of aerodynamics that make an aircraft fly, but the laws of economics.
Proof that it's not really the laws of aerodynamics that make an aircraft fly, but the laws of economics.
The A321 certainly displaced the 757 among the significant number of European holiday flight operators who used to operate it, who replaced their fleets of one with the other well before the US airlines have got round to the same thing over the same sorts of distances.
Regarding sticking to a single type, the traditional US majors have now merged up to such a size that the economies of sticking to a single type diminish, almost to the extent of going negative. If your fleet is two aircraft, it is grossly inefficient to have one of each. If it is 100 it is a lesser percentage difference to have 50 of each. If it is 500, which is the sort of size the US majors have now become, then the differential sort of disappears if you have 250 of each, plus the chosen manufacturer no longer has you by the short-and-curlies and knows it in negotiations. Notably, the larger Chinese operators, now with fleets getting up to US major size, have long done this dual sourcing.
Regarding sticking to a single type, the traditional US majors have now merged up to such a size that the economies of sticking to a single type diminish, almost to the extent of going negative. If your fleet is two aircraft, it is grossly inefficient to have one of each. If it is 100 it is a lesser percentage difference to have 50 of each. If it is 500, which is the sort of size the US majors have now become, then the differential sort of disappears if you have 250 of each, plus the chosen manufacturer no longer has you by the short-and-curlies and knows it in negotiations. Notably, the larger Chinese operators, now with fleets getting up to US major size, have long done this dual sourcing.
Last edited by WHBM; 4th Nov 2013 at 07:38.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A321 More then a 757 replacement
It seems the A321/NEO's will replace also 767-200s, 737-400s, 800s, 737-900/ER's, MD88s, and probably 767-300s, A330s to better match changing capacity / frequency requirements TCON..
short flights long nights
Thanks for the interesting information guys
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently the first AA 321 made its first flight last week..
US has 93 A321s in service and 17 on order.
So the "new"merged AA has over 300 A321s in service on order..
(and hundreds of additional Airbus A320 NEO purchase rights /options)
Astonishing large A321 fleet..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is Boeing watching how Airbus A321s take over the 200+ seat US Market or are they coming with a responds?
UA seems the only major not (yet?) ordering AA321s.
AA/US, DL/NWA, JetBlue, Spirit are Building up fleets.
UA seems the only major not (yet?) ordering AA321s.
AA/US, DL/NWA, JetBlue, Spirit are Building up fleets.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The Dee Sea
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know how many you can cram into a one-class Euro lo-co 321, but US carriers keep the capacity in the 180-190 range. Once you hit 200, you have to add a 5th cabin crew, and it's not worth it to squeeze those last few seats in.
UA is taking on 739ERs to replace 752s in that capacity niche. NK is adding 320s (with a lot of seats); not 321s.
UA is taking on 739ERs to replace 752s in that capacity niche. NK is adding 320s (with a lot of seats); not 321s.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetblue and AA use the A321 length to put in transcon sleeper seats. Re-aranging the cabin/exits A321s will soon be able to carry up to 236 seats, possibly making 5 crew members more feasible for some airlines.
