Airbus ever going to launch a real 757/ 762/ A300 Replacement? Airbus A322 ?

[keesje]

Now I realize that the airline manufacturers make these decisions based on their prospect of what the market wants and what it will want in the future

.. exactly !

[Frequent Traveller]

For 757 replacement, try H52QR MAX or H53QR MAX

I've been through the foregoing discussion. Interesting ! There are some 1030 class 757 aircraft up there doing their job for the airlines day-in day-out and many of you confirm it's a fine aircraft. Why do you want to replace those excellent workhorses, if there are other possible avenues ? ... such as eg cabin refurbish + engine change, to MAX (GTF PurePower or LEAP-X ? pending which may come up with an incremental power setting of 3,500 - 4,000 lbf beyond what is presently planned for A321) ? :

http://media.wix.com/ugd/4f7666_6da4...%2Bniche-1.pdf

[keesje]

Interesting concept. I agree with the writers the A321 looks set to take over the US based 757 fleet/ transcon. AA/US has 300 A321s on order/ in service. Jetblue, DL ordered fleets that will soon enter service. UA no doubt will follow, for their Houston routes southwards. 737-900ERs don't do them.

Problem for upgrading the 757s would be their OEW but even more I guess their age/ hours / cycles and old systems. I have the impression the US operators are really wearing out their 757s lacking a real replacement..

[cosmo kramer]

Keesje:
I found videos (that prove nothing) of the two types taking off from the same runway with the same destination, from the same airline under similar conditions.

737-900ER
SKY Airlines Boeing 737-900ER (!) takeoff at kjevik - YouTube

....Proves nothing but gives an impression.

Just a short comment to the videos you posted, a bit off topic... You are right they prove nothing (dis-proving nothing either, I have no opinion on 739 vs. A321).

But, for your knowledge and to take away any assumptions (/impressions), the rotation technique used in the 737 video is plain wrong... (probably they PIC/PF was afraid of tail strike).

He lifts the nose wheel off, and makes a long huge pause before continuing the rotation (which through-out is too slow). It provides for a magnificent tail clearance, but invalidates takeoff calculations and prolongs the ground roll. A B739 rotated correctly has a tail clearance of 11 inch (33 cm) with flaps 1 and 19 inch (49 cm) with flaps 5!!

[Pub User]

probably they PIC/PF was afraid of tail strike)

Very probably, aren't we all afraid of that?

It provides for a magnificent tail clearance, but invalidates takeoff calculations and prolongs the ground roll

Once the nosewheel is off the ground, the takeoff calculations are history, and you are in to real life. In this particular case he still had two engines, so the little picture you posted of Rotation Rates v Screen Height starts to look rather irrelevant.

[cosmo kramer]

Once the nosewheel is off the ground, the takeoff calculations are history, and you are in to real life.

Tell that to the mountain ahead of you...

[Frequent Traveller]

Quoting keesje : "Problem for upgrading the 757s would be their OEW but even more their age/hours/cycles and old systems. I have the impression the US operators are really wearing out their 757s ..."/unquote

Boeing engineers keep the original 757 construction blueprints in a drawer somewhere @ Renton (WA) ... they could bring them out again, blow off the dust and give the 757 a new chance with the MAX ... a better strategy than giving the 757 niche away for Airbus to pick up with A321 undisturbed (except for compromised applications of 787 where this makes sense) ? And maybe here's some meat on a bone for IAM, if the 777X is moved out of WA ?

BTW, how do I post a proper "quote" of other postings here on PPRuNe ?

[keesje]

Frequent flyer, I guess producing the 757 would be an issue because only the drawings are left. Aircraft these days aren't build the same way they did 30 yrs ago, margins, modularity, automation etc. dramatically changed. I guess many drawings are on film iso hard disk.. And the production lines/ supply chains evaporated.. Recreating a 1979 production line seems unrealistic. Billions of investments, many years..

Years ago I sketched a more radical 737 upgrade, $4 billion, EIS 2014

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...Xfrontside.jpg

The new merged AA has a staggering 300(!) A321 on order/ in service. Plus 260 NEO options. The first new AA A321 can enter transcon service any day now.

You Tube

I wonder too if Boeing will let Airbus walk away with the 200+ seat segment. They did not convince the industry the -9 will be up to par. Airlines have smart performance engineers too..

Hopefully Boeing didn't convince themselves (their management) the -9 will do just fine..

[Frequent Traveller]

The Boeing 200+ seater response in a nutshell

Boeing strategists believe they can impress upon the market the idea that one day a "Fattie" [2+3+2] might be incepted ... but any observer can see it's a mere sand-in-the-eyes Paper Tiger, for the simple reason that above a twin Y-class seat there's not sufficient space to install a proper hatrack. Therefore a "Fattie" (if any) is necessarily a [1+4+1], which btw is already in the pipeline : the staggered C919 ! Realistically, though, both A and B can produce cheap [1+3+1] sine die : H2XQR Series, H3XQR Series and/or H5XQR Series (which is the topic here) ... The [3+3] config extended beyond 37 rows is an airport ground turn-around nuisance and an in-flight service non-performer. I personally don't believe in A321 @ 236 seats, neither do I believe in A322 [3+3] ... the classical 757 suffered (as would your own 737 rewinged concept project) from the same disease ...