Real A300, 310, 757, 767 replacement aircraft idea
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Real A300, 310, 757, 767 replacement aircraft idea
Hi folks, I put on some ideas on a 200-300 seat medium haul aircraft.
IMO there is a large gab between the A321/737-900ER and the A330-200 / 787 / A350 which are significant larger / heavier, don't fit the gates and are optimized for long haul (including LD3's).
There are a pile of A300/310, 757-200, 757-300, 767-200, 767-300s that need to be replaced in the next decade. Currently offered aircraft don't seem to fit the requirement.
I tried to summarize everything in 1 picture, that should tell it all. What do you think?
IMO there is a large gab between the A321/737-900ER and the A330-200 / 787 / A350 which are significant larger / heavier, don't fit the gates and are optimized for long haul (including LD3's).
There are a pile of A300/310, 757-200, 757-300, 767-200, 767-300s that need to be replaced in the next decade. Currently offered aircraft don't seem to fit the requirement.
I tried to summarize everything in 1 picture, that should tell it all. What do you think?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, where do you see a gap? The A321 can go to about 220 passengers, the 787-8 210-280. How do you want to design an aircraft with 230 seats and a OEW (do you mean DOM?) of 72 tons? Boeing is at the moment the leader in lightweight design.
I don't think that airlines want to open another separate type. The trick is fleet commonality, not variety...
Dani
I don't think that airlines want to open another separate type. The trick is fleet commonality, not variety...
Dani
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: BCN
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
range.
But... an aircraft designed for long range, is so efficient in short hops? You all know that higher range requires higher MTOW, so bigger engines, that in short hops will be running at a lower regime.
So maybe is logical, a replacement of A300 type, with lower MTOW, so smaller engines running at his designed regime, more efficient in short, but high demand routes...
Or maybe I'm speaking nonsense?
Any opininons?
So maybe is logical, a replacement of A300 type, with lower MTOW, so smaller engines running at his designed regime, more efficient in short, but high demand routes...
Or maybe I'm speaking nonsense?
Any opininons?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that a cross-section only slightly wider than A320 and much narrower than B767 is not efficient for 6 abreast. The 2 narrow aisles would not be much help in disembarking, and would take up a lot of space. A single wider aisle would be better. But still problematic on short hops - waste of space. What you could do, however, is to have a plane slightly wider than A320 directed at long and thin routes.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2, 2, 2 seating is much better than 3, 3 for longhaul. You get two aisles so get a feeling of space and you only ever have to climb over 1 person to get out of your seat.
Spoke to a chap recently who hated the 747 because of its 3 seats by the window - he much preferred the 2 seats in an A340. Certainly a long way with one aisle does feel a bit cramped.
The 787 could easily be shrunk and I think that is the best option. I do see a missing link though, the 787 is bigger than the 767, so what will fly into the space limited and market limited but profitable routes the 76 flies now? Places like GCM (too small for a 777) and LCA where a 767 is a perfect size all year round? (A330 and 787 seem a bit big, I know Cyprus fly an A330 to LCA, but they are not the world's most profitable).
Edited for spelling.
Spoke to a chap recently who hated the 747 because of its 3 seats by the window - he much preferred the 2 seats in an A340. Certainly a long way with one aisle does feel a bit cramped.
The 787 could easily be shrunk and I think that is the best option. I do see a missing link though, the 787 is bigger than the 767, so what will fly into the space limited and market limited but profitable routes the 76 flies now? Places like GCM (too small for a 777) and LCA where a 767 is a perfect size all year round? (A330 and 787 seem a bit big, I know Cyprus fly an A330 to LCA, but they are not the world's most profitable).
Edited for spelling.
Last edited by Jetstream Rider; 5th Dec 2007 at 11:10.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thnx for the responses!
In the picture on the right side you can see the Greenliner is a bit wider then the A320.
It has two aisles for short routes & faster (de)boarding; 30% of the middle seat can fold up, as indicated at the picture. That creates about 10 additional cross-over's. when two stairs / gates are used this should really speed up the process and short haul / leisure operations.
The single aisle variant offers superior seat comfort. The middle seat offers an unsurpassed 23 inch (including armrests) and the aisle window seats a still very good 21 (incl armrests) compensating for long flights in a relatively narrow cabin (compared to 767/ 330 / etc). The 757-200s used increasingly transatlantic (Co, NW, AA, DL, US) offers a critical narrow 17 inch with shared armrests..
I think the 787 is a great plane but its 110tons empty weight prevent it from becoming efficient for short haul. As a reference the 757-300 weighs 65 tons, 40 metric tons less then 787-8. That 40 tons equals the weight of ~400 passengers including luggage...
Lets not forget the 787 is a serious 9 abreast widebody that fits easily 330 seats in single class, so about 50% more then a A321 in single class. The 787-3 is still 100 tons and uncompetitive heavy compared to even older generation aircraft like the A300 and 767.
Both the A321 and B787-300 are not transatlantic / medium haul. The 787-8 is very long haul which translates in its high empty weight / installed thrust.
I think an aircraft like the Greenliner would offer significantly lower CASM then 787/ A330/ like aircraft on medium routes were lean passenger operations are more important then cargo.
I think there are at least 1600 757/767/a300/310 that need to be replaced in the next decade. Intra Asia, European and US coast to coast like operations require new fuel efficient aircraft. IMO neither the 737-900ER, A321 or 787-3 do cater for the required growth, range and efficiency.
Contraryto the 737/757 this aircraft can carry the NB containers / pallets used on the a320 series. It's a long fuselage, many should fit in.
In the picture on the right side you can see the Greenliner is a bit wider then the A320.
It has two aisles for short routes & faster (de)boarding; 30% of the middle seat can fold up, as indicated at the picture. That creates about 10 additional cross-over's. when two stairs / gates are used this should really speed up the process and short haul / leisure operations.
The single aisle variant offers superior seat comfort. The middle seat offers an unsurpassed 23 inch (including armrests) and the aisle window seats a still very good 21 (incl armrests) compensating for long flights in a relatively narrow cabin (compared to 767/ 330 / etc). The 757-200s used increasingly transatlantic (Co, NW, AA, DL, US) offers a critical narrow 17 inch with shared armrests..
I think the 787 is a great plane but its 110tons empty weight prevent it from becoming efficient for short haul. As a reference the 757-300 weighs 65 tons, 40 metric tons less then 787-8. That 40 tons equals the weight of ~400 passengers including luggage...
Lets not forget the 787 is a serious 9 abreast widebody that fits easily 330 seats in single class, so about 50% more then a A321 in single class. The 787-3 is still 100 tons and uncompetitive heavy compared to even older generation aircraft like the A300 and 767.
Both the A321 and B787-300 are not transatlantic / medium haul. The 787-8 is very long haul which translates in its high empty weight / installed thrust.
I think an aircraft like the Greenliner would offer significantly lower CASM then 787/ A330/ like aircraft on medium routes were lean passenger operations are more important then cargo.
I think there are at least 1600 757/767/a300/310 that need to be replaced in the next decade. Intra Asia, European and US coast to coast like operations require new fuel efficient aircraft. IMO neither the 737-900ER, A321 or 787-3 do cater for the required growth, range and efficiency.
Contraryto the 737/757 this aircraft can carry the NB containers / pallets used on the a320 series. It's a long fuselage, many should fit in.
Last edited by keesje; 5th Dec 2007 at 10:20. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2, 2, 2 seating is much better than 3, 3 for longhaul. You get two isles so get a feeling of space and you only ever have to climb over 1 person to get out of your seat.
30% of the middle seat can fold up, as indicated at the picture. That creates about 10 additional cross-over's. when two stairs / gates are used this should really speed up the process and short haul / leisure operations.
The single aisle variant offers superior seat comfort. The middle seat offers an unsurpassed 23 inch (including armrests) and the aisle window seats a still very good 21 (incl armrests) compensating for long flights in a relatively narrow cabin
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All Sud-Est Armagnac were broken up in the fifties. Setting up production would be a hazard and I doubt the range / capasity is sufficient. 
Folding up seats on the 767 seem less praticle. Its 3 wide seats in the 767 instead of two narrow ones for a start, apart from that, not to many 767s are used on short haul..
I agree on the frontal area / friction & weight on the 767 vs 757. Thats why I tried to introduce narrow body efficiency with wide-body comfort and twin aisle mobility.
Apart from that I hear the 757-300 offers great CASM but is on the edge regarding stiffness, comfort and (de)boarding. 20 inches additional cross section could do the trick offering new cabin options and operational flexibility without introducing widebodies cost levels.
For longhaul a two class configuration seems most feasible. 4 class is possible but likely few routes would be able to support the higher CASM.
Folding up seats on the 767 seem less praticle. Its 3 wide seats in the 767 instead of two narrow ones for a start, apart from that, not to many 767s are used on short haul..
I agree on the frontal area / friction & weight on the 767 vs 757. Thats why I tried to introduce narrow body efficiency with wide-body comfort and twin aisle mobility.
Apart from that I hear the 757-300 offers great CASM but is on the edge regarding stiffness, comfort and (de)boarding. 20 inches additional cross section could do the trick offering new cabin options and operational flexibility without introducing widebodies cost levels.
For longhaul a two class configuration seems most feasible. 4 class is possible but likely few routes would be able to support the higher CASM.
Last edited by keesje; 5th Dec 2007 at 11:01. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2,2,2 v's 3,3 - space does indeed cost, but it needs to be weighed against the popularity of the config. If your competitors fly widebodies with 2 aisles and you offer a narrowbody with one, then your aircraft may not be so popular. Its a difficult equation, but given the choice for the same aircraft size I'd go for the 2,2,2.
I fly the 767 on shorthaul routes, and even though it has higher fuel burn than the 757 it does an excellent (profitable) job especially when you add in cargo. From various destinations we carry tons of the stuff. The Airbus 320 family cannot do that, the 757 is limited in that respect and the 787 is too big. There is a gap and it will be interesting to see what will fill it.
The great power of the 767 and the 757 is their flexibility - something the 320 doesn't have. Its up against weight limits and range limits and cargo hold size. For some airlines this isn't an issue, but when the 75 and 76 leave the fleets of some airlines, then something will have to drop. It depends where the airlines want to place their risks - fuel burn or lack of flexibility.
I fly the 767 on shorthaul routes, and even though it has higher fuel burn than the 757 it does an excellent (profitable) job especially when you add in cargo. From various destinations we carry tons of the stuff. The Airbus 320 family cannot do that, the 757 is limited in that respect and the 787 is too big. There is a gap and it will be interesting to see what will fill it.
The great power of the 767 and the 757 is their flexibility - something the 320 doesn't have. Its up against weight limits and range limits and cargo hold size. For some airlines this isn't an issue, but when the 75 and 76 leave the fleets of some airlines, then something will have to drop. It depends where the airlines want to place their risks - fuel burn or lack of flexibility.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from that I hear the 757-300 offers great CASM but is on the edge regarding stiffness, comfort and (de)boarding. 20 inches additional cross section could do the trick offering new cabin options and operational flexibility without introducing widebodies cost levels.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Northport, NW England
Age: 44
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great food for thought on here.
If I may add a few points:
I agree there is a gap in the market for medium size, mid range type. As already stated the B737-8/900 and A321 just don't cut it weight/range when you get up past the 5hr mark. But I think the reason no one has replaced the 757 directly is because even now boeing will admit the 757 is and always was Too heavy for 70% of its routes. i.e. its weight reflects the capability of the aircraft which few operators used more than 30% of its working life.
My operator is curently slowly rolling over from 75/767 to 738 and on the Egyptian routes (ex UK) the 738 is consitently leaving bags behind to lift the weight out of field limited airports. This is unacceptable but will be the future as the accountants love the 737. Personally, once you are past the LCD screens I think its an achaeic deisgn with no business flying in its current guise.
However - the problem as I see it is to be able to design an airframe that is sufficiently light enough in a structural sense to be able to serve the shorter sectors competitively with the 320/737 whilst retaining the performance of the 75/76/310 for the longer sectors.
I don't believe a single design can serve both markets - not with the commercial pressures of the industry at the moment and the 738s and 320s of this world kicking at its heels. The accountants cannot resist them.
My personal view is somewhat simplistic - refurb the current fleet of 757s strip the ETOPS kit out of the a/c (within reason) and install winglets and new engine cores.
An expesive mod but you'll get the aircraft you need as sadly the market for an All in One aircraft is A:too small and B: likely to neither segment justice.
If I may add a few points:
I agree there is a gap in the market for medium size, mid range type. As already stated the B737-8/900 and A321 just don't cut it weight/range when you get up past the 5hr mark. But I think the reason no one has replaced the 757 directly is because even now boeing will admit the 757 is and always was Too heavy for 70% of its routes. i.e. its weight reflects the capability of the aircraft which few operators used more than 30% of its working life.
My operator is curently slowly rolling over from 75/767 to 738 and on the Egyptian routes (ex UK) the 738 is consitently leaving bags behind to lift the weight out of field limited airports. This is unacceptable but will be the future as the accountants love the 737. Personally, once you are past the LCD screens I think its an achaeic deisgn with no business flying in its current guise.
However - the problem as I see it is to be able to design an airframe that is sufficiently light enough in a structural sense to be able to serve the shorter sectors competitively with the 320/737 whilst retaining the performance of the 75/76/310 for the longer sectors.
I don't believe a single design can serve both markets - not with the commercial pressures of the industry at the moment and the 738s and 320s of this world kicking at its heels. The accountants cannot resist them.
My personal view is somewhat simplistic - refurb the current fleet of 757s strip the ETOPS kit out of the a/c (within reason) and install winglets and new engine cores.
An expesive mod but you'll get the aircraft you need as sadly the market for an All in One aircraft is A:too small and B: likely to neither segment justice.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 6 inches on the 320 vs the 737 do offer significantly higher stiffness for weight, noticeable space / comfort.
I think one of the biggest advantages of the A321 over the 737-900ER is payload range and the ability to carry cargo containers and pallets, while the 737 and 757 can not.
Because the greenliner is just over 60 meters, a lot of them should fit in.
The A321 can't match the 757 range flexibility it is build for / used on high volume trunk routes. Its cargo capability, much lower weight and operating costs was one of the factors that pushed the 757 out of the market.
I think one of the biggest advantages of the A321 over the 737-900ER is payload range and the ability to carry cargo containers and pallets, while the 737 and 757 can not.
Because the greenliner is just over 60 meters, a lot of them should fit in.
The A321 can't match the 757 range flexibility it is build for / used on high volume trunk routes. Its cargo capability, much lower weight and operating costs was one of the factors that pushed the 757 out of the market.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B737 and B757 share a cross-section, but they have a number of differences like cockpit, landing gear and engines.
Suppose that one were to design a plane which has the cross-section and heavy commonality with A321, but bigger wing, engines and MTOW. letīs call them A322 and A323.
The airplane would be heavier than A321 on short hops - but it would have a longer range, and A323 would have good CASM.
Now, do you think that it would be possible to employ A322 profitably in a manner that could compete with A350?
B757 is loved by VIPs like Air Force Two and VIP charters. It has great range and can use small airports - much better range than VIP 737s. It has smaller size than B767-200. Several airlines use 757 for all-business flights - l' Avion has 90 business class seats, Eos has 48 about first class flat beds.
What their problem is is that they cannot offer a good frequency for the business passengers.
So what about having a schedule which intersperses widebodies with large cargo and economy loads and relatively small business class with medium-haul narrowbodies with relatively big business class, little economy and cargo capacity?
Suppose that one were to design a plane which has the cross-section and heavy commonality with A321, but bigger wing, engines and MTOW. letīs call them A322 and A323.
The airplane would be heavier than A321 on short hops - but it would have a longer range, and A323 would have good CASM.
Now, do you think that it would be possible to employ A322 profitably in a manner that could compete with A350?
B757 is loved by VIPs like Air Force Two and VIP charters. It has great range and can use small airports - much better range than VIP 737s. It has smaller size than B767-200. Several airlines use 757 for all-business flights - l' Avion has 90 business class seats, Eos has 48 about first class flat beds.
What their problem is is that they cannot offer a good frequency for the business passengers.
So what about having a schedule which intersperses widebodies with large cargo and economy loads and relatively small business class with medium-haul narrowbodies with relatively big business class, little economy and cargo capacity?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chornedsnorkack, i once specified an aircraft like you mention : the A320 enhanced performance with a lenght inbetween 320 and 321, new engines, interior and roof top windows 
It could offer a bit more range & less capasity the the A321 without real dramatic modifications. Henry Lam (kaktusdigital.com) did a IMO great visual on it:
However IMO it wouldn't really offer the payload range operational flexibility to be a 757 / 767 / A310 successor..
It could offer a bit more range & less capasity the the A321 without real dramatic modifications. Henry Lam (kaktusdigital.com) did a IMO great visual on it:
However IMO it wouldn't really offer the payload range operational flexibility to be a 757 / 767 / A310 successor..
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Magic Kingdom
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with your 2+2+2 design is that you are replacing an additional seat for an aisle (empty space). This may sound good but it also represents a 14% reduction in potential revenue for an airline (not a good thing).
The bigger planes have twin aisle due to the greater seat number 2+4+2 or 3+3+3 or even 2+5+2. I am sure some bean counter may be salivating at the option of a 5+5 configuration somewhere.
The sucessor for the planes you mentioned are the twin aisled 787/350 and the 330/777 designs. The short haul routes are most economicaly covered by single aisle (737/32x) designs.
A narow body business+ configuration may make economic sense, but you need the larger size to make money with economy passengers.
The bigger planes have twin aisle due to the greater seat number 2+4+2 or 3+3+3 or even 2+5+2. I am sure some bean counter may be salivating at the option of a 5+5 configuration somewhere.
The sucessor for the planes you mentioned are the twin aisled 787/350 and the 330/777 designs. The short haul routes are most economicaly covered by single aisle (737/32x) designs.
A narow body business+ configuration may make economic sense, but you need the larger size to make money with economy passengers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desert Liner, the number aisles is related to safety. So 5-5 would probably never get approved. The 2-2-2 I specified has narrow seats and minimum width aisles. Also the double seats are placed at minimum pitch that wouldn't go well on 4-5 seaters.
The additional cabin provides credible comfort & luggage space for flights up to 9 hours. It's a little bigger, more range, better cargo and more comfortable then the 757s. Combine that with CFRP fuselage + wing and new gen engines and I doubt operators will go for expensive 40 tons /90.000lbs heavier 787's/ A350s, that provide an enormous boost in capasity on top of that. I don't see how that can be an economic solution for the 757/762 sized medium haul replacement markets. It would be great aircraft on the wrong mission.
Side kick: I wouldn't be surprized if Boeing makes a deal with the Japanese to convert the 787-3s orders into 787-8s and move on with the 787-10 instead. A win win it seems.. The 787 simply aint a <5 hr aircraft.. neither are the A330 (ask Qantas) and A350..
The additional cabin provides credible comfort & luggage space for flights up to 9 hours. It's a little bigger, more range, better cargo and more comfortable then the 757s. Combine that with CFRP fuselage + wing and new gen engines and I doubt operators will go for expensive 40 tons /90.000lbs heavier 787's/ A350s, that provide an enormous boost in capasity on top of that. I don't see how that can be an economic solution for the 757/762 sized medium haul replacement markets. It would be great aircraft on the wrong mission.
Side kick: I wouldn't be surprized if Boeing makes a deal with the Japanese to convert the 787-3s orders into 787-8s and move on with the 787-10 instead. A win win it seems.. The 787 simply aint a <5 hr aircraft.. neither are the A330 (ask Qantas) and A350..
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think one of the biggest advantages of the A321 over the 737-900ER is payload range and the ability to carry cargo containers and pallets, while the 737 and 757 can not.
Its cargo capability, much lower weight and operating costs was one of the factors that pushed the 757 out of the market.
Which means that unless your Greenliner uses the exact belly hold cross-section of A320, there will be space left over and wasted in Greenliner belly hold. And if you do build Greenliner belly hold to fit the cross-section of A320 belly hold while making the cabin wider, you are getting farther from double bubble, which means your floor loading and weight increases.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Magic Kingdom
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desert Liner, the number aisles is related to safety. So 5-5 would probably never get approved. The 2-2-2 I specified has narrow seats and minimum width aisles. Also the double seats are placed at minimum pitch that wouldn't go well on 4-5 seaters.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However IMO it wouldn't really offer the payload range operational flexibility to be a 757 / 767 / A310 successor.
You can certainly match as well as exceed the payload and range of 757!