End in sight for 757 ?
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
From: Wet Coast
End in sight for 757 ?
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
From: A country that most people dislike but we adore
to replace its slow-selling 757 and 767
Boeing have just spent a fortune in the last 5 years getting the 757-300 out, as well as making the 767-400 possible.
Recent modest improvements to the 767 have failed to hold off the popular Airbus A330-200.
A bit more than "modest". Really, the 767-400 and the A330-200 are really 6-of-one-half-a-dozen-of-the-other . . . it really depends on the airline's manufacturer preference, the products are very similiar. And the 767 has sold almost 1,000, thus far the 332 has sold less than half. Not really "failing to hold them back".The 737NG, the 757 and the 767 are so flexible, both up and down, that adding another aircraft to the mix would not really benefit anybody.
If it ain't broke don't fix it, that's all I'm saying.
To me, the 767 is a wonderful, versatile and efficient aircraft, well-loved and established by the airlines, with an excellent safety record behind it. Why would Boeing need to build a new one?
Just unenlightened journalist rubbish if you ask me.
SFly
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Mountain View, CA
What I think it is....
In regards to a potential 757/767 replacement, I guess what Boeing may be working it is something like this:
1. It will use the current 767 fuselage cross-section.
2. It will sport a new nose and new tail design.
3. It wil have a new, lower-drag wing with raked wingtips.
4. It will be powered with the latest variants of the PW4000, CF6-80 or Trent 600 engines.
5. The long-range variants will have at least 6,500 nautical mile range and cruising speed about the same as the 777-200ER.
In short, the only thing in common with the 767 is the main fuselage section--everything else will be brand new.
1. It will use the current 767 fuselage cross-section.
2. It will sport a new nose and new tail design.
3. It wil have a new, lower-drag wing with raked wingtips.
4. It will be powered with the latest variants of the PW4000, CF6-80 or Trent 600 engines.
5. The long-range variants will have at least 6,500 nautical mile range and cruising speed about the same as the 777-200ER.
In short, the only thing in common with the 767 is the main fuselage section--everything else will be brand new.
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 569
Likes: 24
From: Accruing MilliSiverts
But it's the fuselage that's the problem........I don't like travelling in the 767 for that very reason. Needs to be as wide as the 777 or the A330.
Time to dump the old girl and create a 777-like airplane.
Time to dump the old girl and create a 777-like airplane.
Joined: Oct 1998
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
From: Holland
Believe me SFly, by the time Boeing admits that some of their product line is past its sell by date it is waaaayyyy beyond its sell by date.
Its a bit like an Old VW Beetle, you can stick in a new engine and a new instrument panel it is still an old Beetle
Before either the 757-300 or 767-400 were launched most analysts within the airlines did not believe in them because of the residual value problem and performance wise. Boeing had to continue with the -400 because of the threat of the A330. If you look at the performance of the the 330 (particulary the -200 (the -300 is a dog) ) you will find it the ideal DC10 / MD11 replacement or for routes with slightly higher loads than the good old 767-300ER. The only takers for the -400 have been operators who had Boeing in their fleets. Even KLM a good boeing customer went for the 330 next to the 777.
Believe me the next to go is the NG. Eventhough sales are good for the moment Boeing realises that they need to start quitely working on a replacement. They will not tell the market as with car sales as soon as you find out that there is a new model coming residuals and orders for the current model will fall.:o
Its a bit like an Old VW Beetle, you can stick in a new engine and a new instrument panel it is still an old Beetle
Before either the 757-300 or 767-400 were launched most analysts within the airlines did not believe in them because of the residual value problem and performance wise. Boeing had to continue with the -400 because of the threat of the A330. If you look at the performance of the the 330 (particulary the -200 (the -300 is a dog) ) you will find it the ideal DC10 / MD11 replacement or for routes with slightly higher loads than the good old 767-300ER. The only takers for the -400 have been operators who had Boeing in their fleets. Even KLM a good boeing customer went for the 330 next to the 777.
Believe me the next to go is the NG. Eventhough sales are good for the moment Boeing realises that they need to start quitely working on a replacement. They will not tell the market as with car sales as soon as you find out that there is a new model coming residuals and orders for the current model will fall.:o
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
From: Portsmouth
Although sales of both 757 and 767 are low, both have sold enough in the past to have paid for the tooling etc on the production line are are relatively cheapto produce, and will probably remain in production until they need the floor space for production of something new.
At the moment it is just a paper study; wheb designs are complete they will approach various airlines looking for a launch customer before formally adding it to its product list.
Deliveries for April consisted of 22 737s, 7 777s, 5 757s, 3 767s, 2 747s and 1 717. To cut costs Boeing are cutting 30,000 of its production staff; halving production rates.
At the moment it is just a paper study; wheb designs are complete they will approach various airlines looking for a launch customer before formally adding it to its product list.
Deliveries for April consisted of 22 737s, 7 777s, 5 757s, 3 767s, 2 747s and 1 717. To cut costs Boeing are cutting 30,000 of its production staff; halving production rates.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
From: A country that most people dislike but we adore
Dutchie, my point exactly. The 767 and A330 are very similar in most respects . . . I would say, (and I don't want to get into a Boeing/Airbus debate, and this is only my opinion only) that the 767-300ER is a slightly better aircraft, but the A330 certainly has higher capacity and therefore is possibly more attractive to airlines.
Therefore, if Boeing were to improve upon the 767 (and not just put in a few fuselage plugs and seatback TVs and call it the -400 ) they would get increased interest.
The 767 fuselage is but one seat less wide than that of the A330/A340, (Airbus obviously knew this, the 767 being out 10 years before!) and the 763 and the 332 are almost the same length. The 767 fuselage is spacious, roomy and comfortable enough as it is, but to add the capacity, Boeing couldn't do better than to widen the 767-400 fuselage. It would cost plenty to develop, sure, but it would revitalize the so-called "slow selling" production line, and it would infinitely less expensive to design than an entire new aircraft which would just be more of the same anyway.
The widening would create more cargo space, plus about 50 more seats. The last step would be a re-engine, upgrading to the latest (PW4000, a downgraded GE90 even, and the RR Trent's biggest and best). This would improve MTOW figures and would easily match the A330's competition.
Of course, if Boeing wants to spend the money on a project that has no real sign of working, they can do that too.
(I do dislike change. I really do.)
SFly
Therefore, if Boeing were to improve upon the 767 (and not just put in a few fuselage plugs and seatback TVs and call it the -400
) they would get increased interest. The 767 fuselage is but one seat less wide than that of the A330/A340, (Airbus obviously knew this, the 767 being out 10 years before!) and the 763 and the 332 are almost the same length. The 767 fuselage is spacious, roomy and comfortable enough as it is, but to add the capacity, Boeing couldn't do better than to widen the 767-400 fuselage. It would cost plenty to develop, sure, but it would revitalize the so-called "slow selling" production line, and it would infinitely less expensive to design than an entire new aircraft which would just be more of the same anyway.
The widening would create more cargo space, plus about 50 more seats. The last step would be a re-engine, upgrading to the latest (PW4000, a downgraded GE90 even, and the RR Trent's biggest and best). This would improve MTOW figures and would easily match the A330's competition.
Of course, if Boeing wants to spend the money on a project that has no real sign of working, they can do that too.
(I do dislike change. I really do.)
SFly
Last edited by SFly; 11th May 2002 at 15:54.
Rebel PPRuNer
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,839
Likes: 4
From: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
I think the A330/A340 fuselage width was also chosen for cargo container compatibility, not just seats - especially important for EI whose cargo business has been keeping the ship afloat on the transatlantic some of the time I hear.
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: Montreal, Canada
Cross-qualification
If Boeing does decide to come out with a new variant of our dear friend the 767, it will be important that it has some degree of cockpit commonality with the 777. I feel that Boeing has really missed the mark compared to Airbus by not offering similar cockpit layouts between the 737NG, the 764 and the 777. That being said, I haven't flown either model, so maybe I'm the on off the mark!
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
From: UK
Well, the 757 & 767 have been in for a long-run, 20 years now.
Is it true to say though,that in terms of the 757,it's operating costs are quite high ? It's supposedly heavy and overpowered for some operations (a virtue of it's flexibilty i guess).
BA are in the process of offloading 40 of them ,and instead of replacing them with nice new 757's (passengers favourite),have opted for the smaller A320/A319.
I love the plane, it feels robust, powerful, smooth and aesthetically is one of the best looking airliners ever .
I'll be sad to see them go
Is it true to say though,that in terms of the 757,it's operating costs are quite high ? It's supposedly heavy and overpowered for some operations (a virtue of it's flexibilty i guess).
BA are in the process of offloading 40 of them ,and instead of replacing them with nice new 757's (passengers favourite),have opted for the smaller A320/A319.
I love the plane, it feels robust, powerful, smooth and aesthetically is one of the best looking airliners ever .
I'll be sad to see them go
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
From: Wet Coast
Mulally of Boeing says they have no plans to replace the 757 (or 767). Which may or may not mean anything at all.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/020513/transport_boeing_1.html
He didn't say (for obvious reasons) how long they intend to continue making them. As someone said earlier, looks like the Reuters people may have er... crafted a news item.
Interesting liitle snippit in the above PR is that the Sonic Cruiser has slipped again, 2010 now (if ever).
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/020513/transport_boeing_1.html
He didn't say (for obvious reasons) how long they intend to continue making them. As someone said earlier, looks like the Reuters people may have er... crafted a news item.
Interesting liitle snippit in the above PR is that the Sonic Cruiser has slipped again, 2010 now (if ever).
