Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

50 Airbus A321XLR for AA

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

50 Airbus A321XLR for AA

Old 21st Jun 2019, 03:23
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 2,087
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
You do know that Boeing discontinued the 757 15 years ago because no one was buying it, and the 757-300 was a major flop (40 aircraft built, they needed about 200 to break even).
To do a 757NG , it would need a new engine, meaning a new engine would have needed to exist in that thrust class (~40k lbs.). Not only was that not the case, none of the engine manufactures saw a business case for developing one. In fact that's still the case - for the NMA to be viable someone will need to step forward and develop the engine.


Pretty sure RR were planning an updated engine if the 757 NG had been launched


It looked like an outstanding aircraft from the proposals I saw, 767-400 cockpit, 2000 gallon fuel tank in the horizontal stabilizer, reinforced 757-300 wing and landing gear for a 275K gross weight would have yielded at least a 4500 NM range


There was a temporary slump in sales for the 757 but ending the line was the biggest mistake Boeing have made in the civilian airliner business


Slowing production to a bare minimum, like they’ve done with the 747, or just keeping the line warm would have given the market the breather it needed, the whole, long, thin concept was just starting to really take off and a NG 757 would have been very popular, I think there’d be a ‘Max’ version by now


Instead they’ve ceded this niche to Airbus and are faced with billions in development costs for a replacement when what Boeing really needs to invest in is a clean sheet 737
replacement
stilton is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2019, 05:10
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,390
Received 179 Likes on 87 Posts
Originally Posted by stilton




Pretty sure RR were planning an updated engine if the 757 NG had been launched


It looked like an outstanding aircraft from the proposals I saw, 767-400 cockpit, 2000 gallon fuel tank in the horizontal stabilizer, reinforced 757-300 wing and landing gear for a 275K gross weight would have yielded at least a 4500 NM range


There was a temporary slump in sales for the 757 but ending the line was the biggest mistake Boeing have made in the civilian airliner business


Slowing production to a bare minimum, like they’ve done with the 747, or just keeping the line warm would have given the market the breather it needed, the whole, long, thin concept was just starting to really take off and a NG 757 would have been very popular, I think there’d be a ‘Max’ version by now


Instead they’ve ceded this niche to Airbus and are faced with billions in development costs for a replacement when what Boeing really needs to invest in is a clean sheet 737
replacement
A temporary slump that had already lasted five years, and had no end in sight. I saw some of the Rolls proposals (I was working 757 at the time) - their 'updated' engine was short of the CFM56-7 on fuel burn/TSFC (which had already been in service for over five years). Aside from range, the 757-200, even with the updated Rolls engines, was killed by the 737-900ER in operating costs, and as I noted previously the 737 was way cheaper to build. The only way a '757NG' made sense was as the -300, and the operators had already figured out it was simply too big for a single aisle - turn times were horrid since it takes to long to load and unload. Further, while a good aircraft, the 757 is still a 1970s design. As for the 767-400 flight deck, the plan had originally been to spread it all through the 757/767 line, but that didn't happen. A big reason why it didn't end up on the 757 is that Boeing couldn't get Rolls to do a FADEC version of the RB211-535, so they had to retain throttle cables (which was incompatible with the 767-400 flight deck).
After ending the 757 production, that factory space was dedicated to building a couple of thousand 737NGs, that were sold quite profitably - instead of building a few 757s at a loss.
For all the bitching about the MAX being a re-hash of 1960s technology - the 757NG would be a rehash of 1970s technology with the same basic fuselage as the 737.
Time will tell what the NMA will be, and if it will be successful. But one thing about the NMA I can guarantee is that it won't be 50 year old technology.
tdracer is online now  
Old 21st Jun 2019, 06:22
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,805
Received 199 Likes on 92 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
For all the bitching about the MAX being a re-hash of 1960s technology - the 757NG would be a rehash of 1970s technology with the same basic fuselage as the 737.
Succinctly put, as ever. The industry abandoned the idea of a 757NG a long time ago, it only lives on in the columns of PPRuNe.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2019, 09:43
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Age: 42
Posts: 1,556
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The industry abandoned the idea of a 757NG a long time ago, it only lives on in the columns of PPRuNe.
Dear me no, there's a regular haunting over on the forums on airliners.net, it's the topic that never dies. It's harder to shake than syphillis (allegedly) and genuinely comes up time after time after time. It really was an amazing aircraft but one from another age, I can't quite manage the fact t's old tech
Skipness One Foxtrot is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2019, 11:23
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 2,087
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
A temporary slump that had already lasted five years, and had no end in sight. I saw some of the Rolls proposals (I was working 757 at the time) - their 'updated' engine was short of the CFM56-7 on fuel burn/TSFC (which had already been in service for over five years). Aside from range, the 757-200, even with the updated Rolls engines, was killed by the 737-900ER in operating costs, and as I noted previously the 737 was way cheaper to build. The only way a '757NG' made sense was as the -300, and the operators had already figured out it was simply too big for a single aisle - turn times were horrid since it takes to long to load and unload. Further, while a good aircraft, the 757 is still a 1970s design. As for the 767-400 flight deck, the plan had originally been to spread it all through the 757/767 line, but that didn't happen. A big reason why it didn't end up on the 757 is that Boeing couldn't get Rolls to do a FADEC version of the RB211-535, so they had to retain throttle cables (which was incompatible with the 767-400 flight deck).
After ending the 757 production, that factory space was dedicated to building a couple of thousand 737NGs, that were sold quite profitably - instead of building a few 757s at a loss.
For all the bitching about the MAX being a re-hash of 1960s technology - the 757NG would be a rehash of 1970s technology with the same basic fuselage as the 737.
Time will tell what the NMA will be, and if it will be successful. But one thing about the NMA I can guarantee is that it won't be 50 year old technology.

Well, the 767 is the same ‘vintage’ technology and is still in production in both military and civilian versions, it’s still an economical aircraft that can be operated profitability for decades to come, and
it hasn’t had a significant, fuel burn reducing engine update


Technical issues with upgrading the 757 cockpit to a 764 configuration could have been solved


Your criticism of ‘50 year old technology’ makes no sense while Boeing has steadily improved, updated and developed new versions of significantly older models such as the 737 and 747, the visionary design of those airframes allowed for those upgrades and the 757 would have as well, it had enormous potential


Boeing’s decision to shut it down was a curious one, they’ve never prematurely done this with any other ‘7 series aircraft, the 747 has come close but management correctly saw the value of slowing production to a crawl while awaiting a market recovery, this has happened for the freighter version, I think there’ll be substantial further orders to replace the -400 F in the future



More 737’s could have been built by expanding elsewhere


Most importantly whatever the 797 costs to develop the 757NG would have been a fraction of that price, it would have been an ideal ‘placeholder’ while Boeing finally replaced the really outdated and compromised 737 with a new aircraft
stilton is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2019, 11:42
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 3,486
Received 140 Likes on 77 Posts
Originally Posted by stilton



Well, the 767 is the same ‘vintage’ technology and is still in production in both military and civilian versions, it’s still an economical aircraft that can be operated profitability for decades to come, and
it hasn’t had a significant, fuel burn reducing engine update


Technical issues with upgrading the 757 cockpit to a 764 configuration could have been solved


Your criticism of ‘50 year old technology’ makes no sense while Boeing has steadily improved, updated and developed new versions of significantly older models such as the 737 and 747, the visionary design of those airframes allowed for those upgrades and the 757 would have as well, it had enormous potential


Not quite.
The 757 airframe was basically the same as the 727. It even had a T tail originally.
The 767 was a completely new airframe.

Oh, and the 767-400 is a mess. Only two airlines ordered it (I think). Part 777 avionics and longer landing gear aside, its a compromise of an old airframe. Not good.
TURIN is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2019, 12:40
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 2,087
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by TURIN
Not quite.
The 757 airframe was basically the same as the 727. It even had a T tail originally.
The 767 was a completely new airframe.

Oh, and the 767-400 is a mess. Only two airlines ordered it (I think). Part 777 avionics and longer landing gear aside, its a compromise of an old airframe. Not good.

You don’t seem to actually know much about these aircraft


The only similarity between the 727 and 757 is the fuselage diameter, there were thoughts of incorporating a T tail early on, no aspects of that design carried over to the production 757, it is a totally different aircraft with a new airframe and systems



While the 764 was not a big seller it’s been a sterling and economic performer for Continental, United and Delta, it’s a profitable compromise



I have a number of years on the 727, 757 and 767, your ‘analysis’ is incorrect
stilton is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2019, 21:16
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 78
Received 16 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by Negan
Why can't Boeing make the 757 NG right now? Just because production stopped it doesn't mean they couldn't start 757 production again or am I missing something? They would easily be able to relaunch it and compete with the A321 XLR
Wasn't the tooling/jigs all destroyed?
Chris2303 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2019, 22:02
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,647
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 15 Posts
Boeing had a pretty good commercial team at the time, based in Seattle rather than Chicago, with of course extensive contacts with all their customers, and could see that demand for the 757 fell off a cliff after 9/11 and nobody was going to order more. BA actually started scrapping their fleet in 2000, many went for cargo even then because there was little secondhand demand. Remember that almost all 757s were ordered for sub-2,000nm operations, it was only later in their life that a fraction of the fleet got adapted for intercontinental work. The key thing by 2000 was that the A321 had come along, and quite a bit of this shorter haul demand got picked off by the 737-800/900 taking its market. Yes, these didn't have the performance of a rocket ship. They didn't have the costs of one either.
WHBM is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.