757
Lars Ewell
To Whom it May Concern,
Greetings.
I was disappointed to learn that the 757 will
no longer be constructed by Boeing.
I was under the impression that this was one of
the most fuel efficient of all comercial airliners.
Can anybody confirm this?
Does anybody have any information regarding the
fuel efficiency (e.g., fuel used/passenger km) of
large airliners (e.g., 757s) vs. smaller airliners
(e.g. CRJs) vs. smallest (e.g. single engine two
passenger turboprop)?
My gut tells me larger airliners would be more
efficient, similar to how a bus is more efficient
than a car.
Posts and email welcome.
Thanks in advance.
regards,
Lars Ewell
Bob
I just joined google groups, and found your message. As an airline
pilot who loves the 757, I am also sad to see the production of it "go
away". I have some experience, on the customer side, with the marketing
tactics of companies like Boeing. I have learned from years past that
they made this particular decision so as to not be manufacturing a
competitive acft with their new 787 Dreamliner. I agree with your
article's logic about efficiency vs size. Within a relatively large
range, the larger the jet the more efficiency one gets out of it.
Obviously, operational length of the flights would play a part...you
couldn't take a 747 on a 100 mile trip and make much money. The key,
here, is that they are probably not willing to risk losing sales of the
new project to 757 loyalists. It's still about the neatest airliner out
there, in terms of sheer power and versatility.
bob luke
wes...@graphics.cornell.nospam.edu.retro.com
> Hello Lars,
>
> I just joined google groups, and found your message. As an airline
> pilot who loves the 757, I am also sad to see the production of it "go
> away". I have some experience, on the customer side, with the marketing
> tactics of companies like Boeing. I have learned from years past that
> they made this particular decision so as to not be manufacturing a
> competitive acft with their new 787 Dreamliner. I agree with your
> article's logic about efficiency vs size. Within a relatively large
> range, the larger the jet the more efficiency one gets out of it.
> Obviously, operational length of the flights would play a part...you
> couldn't take a 747 on a 100 mile trip and make much money.
Ah, but 747's are routinely used for domestic hops in Japan. The key
is having 500 people or so who want to go the same place at the same
time. Oh, and congested airports. I suppose a specialized short-hop
heavy could be further optimized, but there is a limited market.
> The key,
> here, is that they are probably not willing to risk losing sales of the
> new project to 757 loyalists. It's still about the neatest airliner out
> there, in terms of sheer power and versatility.
I recall an explanation of the 757 some time ago in this group; I think
it went something like the following.
1. Boeing proposes a 727 replacement: take the 727, replace the wing,
take engines off the back, put nice new engines on the wing, and
plug the center hole. Insert fancy new electronic cockpit for fuel
efficiency and to reduce required flight crew from 3 to 2.
2. British Airways presses for a larger plane, which gradually happens.
New nose, new tail, etc.
3. Plane is launched and sells more or less well. Not a howling success.
4. BA announces, some years later, that they will be replacing all
757's with A320-series aircraft, as the 757 is too big for their
purposes.
I suspect that the '57 could be stretched quite a bit, but that the
market would rather have something wider (i.e. two aisles) for
capacity this size and larger. And this capacity and smaller tends to
be used for short hauls, so the 737 fills the bill. At any rate, no
one is beating down Boeing's door to buy 757's.
My impression was that the 787 was a notch larger; more a 767
replacement. And replacing a model after over two decades hardly seems
premature :).
--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
Erosion
Ewell) wrote:
> I was disappointed to learn that the 757 will no longer be constructed by Boeing.
>
> I was under the impression that this was one of the most fuel efficient of all comercial airliners.
>
> Can anybody confirm this?
I don't have specific numbers, but I think you're right, it was fairly
fuel efficient -- when it was new. Airliners that have come out since
thing, particularly the 737 NG and the A320 family have overcome any
advantages the 757 had over its older competition.
> My gut tells me larger airliners would be more
>efficient, similar to how a bus is more efficient than a car.
Look around you; what do you see? Lots of small cars, because people
want to go from Point A to Point B when they want to go. They don't
want to leave a half hour earlier to catch the bus that will stop 17
times between A and B, with one of those stops being a hub where you
have to change busses.
Similarly, airlines have found fairly conclusively that passengers
want more frequent flights so there's one closer to when they want
one, and they want a non-stop flight, not a flight on a larger plane
to a hub to wait for a connecting flight to their destination.
When time zones and landing slots reduce practical choices for when a
flight can take off and arrive, larger planes like 747s and the new
A380 make a lot more sense. But fuel efficiency is less often the only
driving factor fleet composition decisions.
Says me, anyway...
> Lars Ewell
Erosion
MegaZone
>I recall an explanation of the 757 some time ago in this group; I think
>it went something like the following.
Remember that the 757 and 767 were always launched as a 'family'.
Same cockpit, same controls, etc. They were meant as a high-low mix
for airlines. The 757 would replace the 727, and the 767 would
replace the 707 and fill the gap between the 757 and 747 - at least
the lower end of the gap. It was sized under the DC-10 & L-1011 which
had the high end of that gap at the time.
Eventually, of course, Boeing launched the 777 which overlapped the
767-400 a bit, and all the way to replacing the 747-100/200.
>1. Boeing proposes a 727 replacement: take the 727, replace the wing,
> take engines off the back, put nice new engines on the wing, and
> plug the center hole. Insert fancy new electronic cockpit for fuel
> efficiency and to reduce required flight crew from 3 to 2.
That was the original intend of the 757 - to replace the 727.
In the early 777 days there was even a proposal that stacked a bit of
757 fuselage on top of the 767 to create a peanut looking thing as a
double decker. Looked really stupid, frankly.
>I suspect that the '57 could be stretched quite a bit, but that the
>market would rather have something wider (i.e. two aisles) for
>capacity this size and larger. And this capacity and smaller tends to
>be used for short hauls, so the 737 fills the bill. At any rate, no
>one is beating down Boeing's door to buy 757's.
Since the 757 launched the 737 Next Generation launched. The
737-800/900, especially, overlap the 757's original market. And if
Boeing does go ahead with the 737-900X (and it looks like they will)
the overlap will be even worse.
>My impression was that the 787 was a notch larger; more a 767
>replacement. And replacing a model after over two decades hardly seems
>premature :).
The 787-3 could be seen as taking away market from 757 routes that are
growing, but yeah, the 787-8/9 are mainly replacements for the 767.
Unless Boeing lands a tanker contract, the 767 will be the next one to
get the axe. (Well, the 717 has already recieved the axe - the line
is supposed to be closed when existing orders are filled, but the door
isn't barred yet - Boeing has said they'll keep the line open if they
received significant new orders.)
It looks like the future for Boing will be 737NG, 787, 777, and 747 -
low to high. Speculation is that the next 'all new' aircraft from
Boeing, post 787, will be a 737 replacement. While te 737NG is a nice
aircraft, the basic design is getting old, and the A320 series has
enjoyed reasonable success in taking market from the 737 with the
wider fuselage and more modern systems. Between the 787 and 737
replacement the 747 Advanced will probably launch - another stretch,
new (787 derived) engines, more composites, etc. To extend the line
closer to the A380 and extend the life of the product again.
-MZ
--
<URL:mailto:megazoneatmegazone.org> Gweep, Discordian, Author, Engineer, me.
"A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men" 508-755-4098
<URL:http://www.megazone.org/> <URL:http://www.eyrie-productions.com/> Eris