Do we need a new Boeing 757?
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.
Nice post. I worked in the airline industry for many years and the 757 was my favorite airplane. Big engines, great rate of climb, but usually a few empty seats, which can’t be tolerated in today’s airline business. I’ve been thinking a lot about the 757 lately and I have also come to the conclusion that airlines obviously don’t need a 200-230 seat single-aisle aircraft. The A321 and -900ER (and later, the A321neo and MAX 9) can do it all domestically up to 180 passengers, and the 787 can take on the 240+ passenger routes. I guess there really is no need for a 200-220 seat replacement. You pegged it when you talked about long, thin routes. There just aren’t many of those out there anymore.
I also have a pet peeve with aircraft manufacturers just improving existing designs instead of starting from scratch. They do it for long-range aircraft, but not domestic. First we got the MD-80 and -90 which has basically the same wing as the DC-9. I did the data analysis for Delta and found that the aircraft couldn’t even reach it’s most efficient altitude! Then, the 737 NG and MAX which were pretty much just engine upgrades. Same with the neo series. Boeing abandoned its Yellowstone Y1 concept in favor of the MAX series. The Y1 would have covered the 100-250 seat range, in effect covering everything the 737 and 757 could do. I imagine it’s an economic issue and more cost effective to roll out 737 upgrades than launch a brand new aircraft. I guess time will tell.
Both aircraft manufacturers are, in my opinion, are permitting short term thinking to take over their strategic thinking and more and more I think that spells opportunity for both Bombardier and Embraer if they care to take advantage of it.
Yes, I am excited about the C Series aircraft. I used to work for P&W and the geared turbofan technology will make that airplane a great one from a performance standpoint. Competing with the A319 and 737-700 might be a stretch but it will certainly be a dominant force in the regional market based on performance and range.
If the C-Series wasn’t a threat, then Airbus wouldn’t have done the NEO and Boeing wouldn’t have held a gun to CFM’s head for performance out of their engine.
The C-Series has every opportunity to become a game changer. The idea that airlines won’t need that range of capacity in a brand new, state of the art efficient airliner is . . . disingenuous at best.
I think the reason airlines continue to buy the 737 and A320 series is for the common type rating. Having that kind of crew flexibility is pretty important across 3 or 4 different A/C types. It will be an issue when they start the integration of the MAX and neo. They could potentially have 6 different A/C with a common type rating.
More and more airlines are finding that having an odd-ball fleet type can be OK in sufficiently large numbers.
Have I missed something? Since when is there a common type rating for 737 and A320? Those two airplanes are very different (side stick vs control yoke) and there are substantial systems differences, auto flight systems design philosophy and architecture differences, and more. My search of the net after seeing John R’s post above didn’t turn up anything about a common type rating. Am I misunderstanding something, or am I just WAY out of date?
Each basic airliner is a family of common types. In other words, John R. was implying that sticking with one or another airliner family was still quite beneficial. And it is. With the 737, you have: 737-700/800/900ER and the MAX7/8/9. With the Airbus A320 family, you have: A318/319/320/321 and A319/A320/A321NEO.
However, airlines have also learned that it is quite acceptable to have several different types (such as what AA will have in operating both the 737 and A320 families) if you are going to have a large enough sub-fleet of the type.
What I meant is that there is a common rating for all 737 models as well as for the A320 series, not combined. 757/767 also has a common type rating. Not sure about 777 and 787.
There is not a common rating between the 777 and 787 but the transition time for a pilot to move between the two aircraft is quoted as being as low as 5 days. Once airlines become adjusted to both aircraft, they’ll be able to move pilots between the two with relative flexibility although not on a day to day basis.
I believe that a 737 rating today means that a pilot is qualified on both the 737 Classic and 737 Next Generation aircraft. I also believe that the intent is to keep the 737MAX in that same family of ratings.
And of course I mean 737 Next Generation (700-900)
The natural replacement of the 757 is the H22QR NEO : with 3 ACT it has three more flight hours’ worth of extra range vs A321 NEO. But a 757 fleet facelift to H52QR and H53QR (ceo) with Premium [1+2+1] and Y-class [1+3+1] would extend the useful commercial lives of up to 1030 units of these excellent aircraft, boosting residual values, with EIS by 2016-17 … enough to set a good kick in the anthill ? If P&W or CFMI can provide the right engines, the re-engined and revamped H5XQR Series MAX would be a winner !
It is fun to see the comments made in 2013 being so wrong in 2015. Even 8f the demand is only 1000 +- there are at least 30 airlines asking for a single aisle plane with 20% more range and 25%more seats than on the 757 and there are at least 12 European cities reached by us airlines in 757 from many hubs or smaller cities in the us. So all those comments seem very silly 2 years later
I do not think that what is being asked for is a 757 replacement at this point.
What we see is the comment that there is a gap between the 737-900ER and the 787-8 and with 767 and 757 aircraft going away, users want it filled.
But 25% greater seats than a current 757 isn’t a 757 replacement.
And, to be specific, the requirement isn’t necessarily a single aisle aircraft.
The requirement being talked about is 25% more seats (by Boeing spec that would be an increase of 2 class service from 200 seats to 250 seats. Realistically, most 757s operate with about 180 seats in a conventional 2 class domestic configuration. A 25% increase on that would be about 230 usable seats.
It’s interesting, to me, that United and AA 787-8 aircraft have about 220 seats.
It would appear that what people want is a relatively less expensive aircraft that will have a range of about 5000 miles and practical “domestic” 2 class seating of about 220 to 230 seats.
That gets awfully close to the 787-8 in practical size and range.
So what does a manufacturer do? Develop an all new 737/757 single aisle replacement with an upper seating (practical) limit of 210 to 220 seats? Develop a “one off”?
Once you get to 5000 miles in range and 220+ seats, it’s hard to figure out why you wouldn’t buy a 787-8 for those same “long and thin” routes.
Why wouldn’t you up-size the 737 replacement to start at 737-800 seating of about 160 seats and end at around 220 seats? If you are Boeing or Airbus, you would realize that the 737-700 “class” isn’t of much interest to airlines anymore and is likely replaced with aircraft in the “regional” airliner class such as the CSeries.
As for range . . . there just ain’t many routes demanding 5000 miles range that are “long and thin”. Yes, the European routes exist but they are not plentiful. As manufacturers have noted over and over again, the 737-MAX9 and A321NEO both can handle 90% or more of existing long thin routes as efficiently or more efficiently than the 757.
I’ll also take note that this “demand” is being expressed quite a bit by lessors this time. Not airlines. That is notable too.
The idea that the 757 was a one-off is not really accurate, as it was part of the 757/767 program. Perhaps both should be replaced at the same time. The cost of the 787 may be what’s forcing all involved parties into short-term planning mode.
Also, is there some reason that engines in a suitable thrust range couldn’t be developed for mid-market airliners, whether Boeing or Airbus?
The argument can be made for perceived lack of demand, but that’s an excuse. Each advance in aviation, whether DC-3, 707, 727, or 747, opened up new markets. How many 737 and Airbus A320 series derivatives (and their slightly smaller twin-engine competition) do we really want or need? Unfortunately, the numbers have been staggering.