One consequence of the A321NEO is that everyone is talking about it being a Boeing 757 replacement.  Everyone talks about how the 757 fleet needs to be replaced and I think quite a few people are missing the point on the 757.

It’s an aircraft conceived of in a regulated era, born in a deregulated era and an airplane that has never really been part of a family of aircraft.  It’s a red headed step child that despite its status, airlines found a use for it.  It was built with too much range, too much power and for an airline model that didn’t include hubs and frequency.

Everyone talks about airlines needing to replace their 757 fleets and its true that these airliners are now old by any standard and will need replacement in the fleet.  But the one thing we shouldn’t do is assume that the mission being served by the 757 is the mission that airlines want to use their next aircraft for.

I’m not sure there needs to be a 757 replacement.  I’m also not sure that we don’t need a 757 replacement.  The original missions that Boeing conceived of for the 757 are not the missions that airliner served primarily.  It would be a mistake to assume that airlines want to replace 1000 757s that are serving long, thin trans-Atlantic routes or trans-continental routes.  They don’t.  Airlines simply found that they could use that expensive asset on those routes and earn money.

But airlines may well have already identified how they want to serve that mission in the future and it may well not resemble anything close to the current 757.

Boeing is right to let the airlines define the missions.  The next Boeing 757-like airliner to come from Boeing will be from a family of aircraft and it never really was the 737-900ER even though that airliner can serve in place of the 757 on most domestic routes.

I don’t think we’ll ever see such a hybrid airliner made again.  Can you imagine Boeing or Airbus sizing an aircraft to fit a smallish market and then providing it with over-powered engines?  I can’t.   Building a family of airliners is about tailoring the aircraft to fit the missions very well and todays missions are very different than they were even in the 757s heyday.

Don’t expect the A321NEO to be a 757 replacement.  Expect it to be an excellent coast to coast airliner for longer, thinner routes between those cities.  I don’t think it will be used for Hawaiian and trans-Atlantic routes in great numbers although it may get employed on a few of those missions if it can work and make an airline money.

Who says airlines want to fly such an aircraft to all kinds of cities in Europe?  I don’t.  In fact, I think that airlines aren’t that interested in such routes (they may be profitable but only just so) being served by such small aircraft.  Such routes don’t yield a very attractive number of dollars on a daily basis and they do come with risks to that profit that airlines don’t enjoy (fuel stops, for instance).

I would also point out that the engines needed for a “true” 757-like replacement don’t exist today.  There are no new next generation engines in those thrust ranges at this time and I’m unaware of any real plans or needs for such in the next ten years either.

But if airlines want a 190 seat trans-Atlantic capable airliner that is efficient and reliable, they’ll communicate that to Boeing and Airbus.  The fact that Airbus and Boeing aren’t running around and chatting up such an idea kind of indicates to me that that requirement really isn’t in the top 5 airline mission requirements being talked about today.

The next generation of single aisle airliners will be different than the current generations because those missions evolve.  Airlines will be asking for something different than just a better 737-700 replacement.  They’ll be asking for a range that will serve their current and projected future needs and that will define airliner families that look very different from the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 series.

If anything, I think the mistake Airbus made with its NEO development is that it is only offering better engines, not a better aircraft.   It won’t have a better cockpit, better seat layout and it won’t be lighter or more durable or more reliable.  That’s where Boeing can really zing Airbus and where it should.

However, for Boeing to do so, they have to, you know, announce the damn project and get on with it.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
15 Comments »