B757

[DaveReidUK]

Reading through the older part of this thread it dawned on me just how radical it was when passenger ETOPS came into being and how the 757 was the first 'small' aircraft to do longer over water routes, when before it was 3 or 4-holer or nothing.

Or a 2-holer 767.

TWA started flying them across the pond in 1985, whereas the 757 wasn't ETOPS-certified (120 mins) until the following year.

[keesje]

TDRACER, I think the above concept shares the 2-3-2 with the 767 but would be composites panels technology like the A350, be lighter, less cargo capable (LD3-45) and range limited.

There isn't a suitable engine at this moment as you notice. However the market is much larger then the limited "757 replacement" Boeing uses to dismiss the A321LR. Evidenced by the 2000+ 757/762/A300/310s and 2300 A321s ordered so far..

I'm sure Boeing changes its mind when they have developed a solution themselves and I expect an engine will be there from GE, PW or RR to power it.

[DaveReidUK]

TDRACER, I think the above concept shares the 2-3-2 with the 767

"Concept" ?

We're talking about something dreamed up by an aeromodelling enthusiast with access to a CAD program.

https://grabcad.com/aisak-2

[keesje]

Of cause there aren't public drawings from the manufacturers yet. The Boeing project is called "LightTwin". Another one is "New Small Aircraft".

Boeing is trying to make up its mind on what to do, because they see a market for aircraft taking more further then the 737/A320. Airbus' A321 is taking it.

On the other hand the 737 appears to approach its expiration date more rapidly then hoped. Saying it ain't so probably won't lead to a satisfactory market share.

So we probably see some action here in the next few years

[rog747]

757-200ER
the UK/EU charter airlines loved it
started off with 223 seats (not that bad) but managed to squidge 235 in it later on
Palma in the morning - Alicante in the afternoon then Goa, Male via BAH or Mombassa in the evening - Orlando too via BGR was a common one

she can take off and land on an aircraft carrier - great brakes- something which Thomson Airways will sorely miss when they retire them from use at Bristol as the 738 will not stop in Bristols' length and diversions will be on the cards in some weather/high weight scenarios

the a321 is no way a replacement - not anywhere near

[Bus14]

great brakes

Ah, that oft repeated myth. The brakes are just fine on the 757, but in reality it's the low landing speed that gives it the nice low landing distances. The rest of your paragraph is spot on though. When the BRS TOM crews are finally dragged kicking and screaming off the 757 and on to that pig of an airplane, the 737, then CWL and BHX are going to get a lot more short notice visits. Fortunately that day keeps receding into the future, and long may it continue doing so. (Apologies for the thread creep).

[rog747]

yes Bus14
thanks very much

my best pal is a 757 skipper for TOM at Brizzle

he used to be a 'bus' driver from air2bob and loved the bus BUT his last few years on 757/767 and he LOVES it
he is lamenting the 757 going

[Diverskii]

he used to be a 'bus' driver from air2bob and loved the bus BUT his last few years on 757/767 and he LOVES it
he is lamenting the 757 going

The 757 always looked great in the Air2k livery; there are some great shots of them at BHX in Mike Vines' book.

Out of interest, where does the Air2Bob nickname come from? I'm not old enough to know...

[TowerDog]

. Ah, that oft repeated myth. The brakes are just fine on the 757, but in reality it's the low landing speed that gives it the nice low landing distances. The rest of your paragraph is spot on though. When the BRS TOM crews are finally dragged kicking and screaming off the 757 and on to that pig of an airplane, the 737, then CWL and BHX are going to get a lot more short notice visits. Fortunately that day keeps receding into the future, and long may it continue doing so. (Apologies for the thread creep).

Yeah low landing speeds, but also more wheels and more brakes than a FLUF
Or a Bus.

I fly the 757 in and out of the high altitude airports in South America, all the way to a 13,300 feet elevation @ La Paz, don't think the A-321 would do any good up there.

As for building a new one, Boeing has repeatedly said NO.

[Hotel Tango]

Out of interest, where does the Air2Bob nickname come from? I'm not old enough to know...

It originated from the days of AIR 2000 (1987-2004). It was renamed First Choice Airways in 2004 and later (2008) merged with ThomsonFly to create Thomson Airways.

[Diverskii]

It originated from the days of AIR 2000 (1987-2004). It was renamed First Choice Airways in 2004 and later (2008) merged with ThomsonFly to create Thomson Airways.

Yeah I know this, but how did Air2000 become Air2Bob?

[DaveReidUK]

Perhaps it's a graphical pun: Air2óoó

[Bus14]

Air2bob was just a nickname. Airtwothousand was a bit of a mouthful, and air2 was a bit short. So some bright spark resorted to using the pre 1971 slang for 2 shillings in old UK money - 2 bob.

[Union Jack]

So some bright spark resorted to using the pre 1971 slang for 2 shillings in old UK money - 2 bob. - Bus14

And another bright spark, presumably a Latin scholar, came up with the Air 2000 old style flight abbreviation of AMM.

[philbky]

The real bright spark was the one who dreamt up a time limited name. At least the Canadian outfit gave itself an extra thousand years, not that it did it any good.

[SpringHeeledJack]

The real bright spark was the one who dreamt up a time limited name. At least the Canadian outfit gave itself an extra thousand years, not that it did it any good.

It was truly amazing how many companies used '2000' in their name during the late 90's within all branches, as it seemed to give them an air of the future. Once the euphoria of New Year 2000 came and went, it looked as stale as yesterday's bread.

[Hotel Tango]

The Canadians got ahead of themselves with Canada 3000 (CMM) though