"Queen of the Skies"...still alive.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that the "economy car" analogy is an inappropriate one.
The 737 was designed for high cycle operation and is capable of more cycles through its operating life than is any widebody or, until quite recently, any Airbus.
The aircraft therefore is actually a pretty rugged design.
The 737-200 can even be equipped for commercial operation from gravel runways and some -200s continue in this role today in the far north.
The main obstacles to longer range use of any 737 are its relative slowness as compared to a 757 or most widebodies as well as the limited seating capacity, neither of which prevent some operators from using the type on longer routes.
The stretch models are yet another example of how the operating economics of any airliner can be improved by adding seats.
Fuel consumption increases at a lower rate than does seating capacity, so operating costs per seat decline.
You still need only pay two pilots to fly the stretch, although you may have to add an FA, or maybe not, so personnel costs aren't significantly higher either.
 
FA are added based on seating capacity. One per every 50 passengers, or fraction thereof...

So, if you go from say, 138 seat configuration with 3 FA, to say, 170 seats with a stretch, you now need 4 FA.

In fact, when UAL reconfigured it's A-320 from 138 to 156 with "TED", the FA requirement went from 3 to 4 on the same exact airframe...
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
FA are added based on seating capacity. One per every 50 passengers, or fraction thereof...

So, if you go from say, 138 seat configuration with 3 FA, to say, 170 seats with a stretch, you now need 4 FA.

In fact, when UAL reconfigured it's A-320 from 138 to 156 with "TED", the FA requirement went from 3 to 4 on the same exact airframe...


I'm aware of this, which is the reason that I wrote that an additional FA might be required.
Many carriers staff flights with more than the minimum number of FAs required to begin with, though.
 
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Always loved flying on a 757, always hated flying on a 737.

737 never looked, felt, or flew like a good aircraft to me.


The one thing I don't like about the 757 is the long disembarkation time if the flight is anywhere near full, especially if you're sitting in a row towards the back.
One of the best things about a widebody is that disembarkation seems to go so much more quickly with two aisles in play.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Always loved flying on a 757, always hated flying on a 737.

737 never looked, felt, or flew like a good aircraft to me.


The one thing I don't like about the 757 is the long disembarkation time if the flight is anywhere near full, especially if you're sitting in a row towards the back.
One of the best things about a widebody is that disembarkation seems to go so much more quickly with two aisles in play.


Completely agree.

When you get 215+ passengers on a 757-300, it takes longer to deplane than just about anything...
 
The -200 is slow enough. A full -300 is comical. Better not have a connecting time of less than an hour or so on a domestic flight.
I still like flying on a 757, just as I prefer an MD-80, -90 or -95 (717) to yet another 737 or A319/320/321.
A little diversity in airline fleets is always nice for those who are interested in airplanes.
 
Well, Boeing must have been monitoring this thread. Kidding aside, it looks like the 757 vs. 737-900NG/MAX discussions and comparisons with the A321 have been decided by the marketplace. The original Bloomberg article says Boeing is looking at a 240 seater. A lot needs to be sorted out, but if this is a 757 replacement it may not enter service until 20 years after the 757 line closed.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boe...midsize-market/
 
Originally Posted By: AdmdeVilleneuve
The PSBJ article has a touch of hometown boosterism in it, I think. I disagree with Dennis Muilenberg of Boeing on the need to replace all of those large freighters at 20 years of age. According to the planespotters.net FedEx page, FedEx is still flying more than 20 MD-10 (updated DC-10) that are over 40 years old. As of 1/28/16, they show FedEx N365FE as 45.0 years old. Although '10s are not '47s, they are being replaced by the 767F at FedEx. Additionally, FedEx has been converting some of their 777F order to more 767F.
Sorry to see the 747 go, but the USAF needs to get that AF One order booked soon.
(Some cool 747-8 testing scenes in the link below.)
www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/fli...aa47f8377b41e3b
The freighters don't get the use of the passenger planes. When I was employed the cargo planes would sit all day and depart at night. The passenger planes would be running all the time it seems.
 
I may have mentioned this but in the 1990s China airlines lost a 747. The company I worked for had lost 4 forklift rentals and the airfreight company laid off 3 freight handlers and one office person from what I remember. They hold lots of cargo when full. I would be terrified of working equipment around aircraft. We were able to romp around in them if the station AP was there. Nothing like sitting in the cockpit and imagining taking it out for a cruise. No I am really not an adult. I doubt if we could do it today.
 
Boeing has been shopping around the idea of a plane in this space for some time now.
Boeing sees a need and therefore a market for something larger and more capable than the 737-900 or A321.
The configuration of this proposed aircraft has yet to be established, but both twin aisle and single aisle ideas have been put on the table.
My bet would be on a twin aisle of 240-280 seats, to slot neatly between the largest single aisle aircraft and the smallest current twin aisle aircraft. The largest single aisle aircraft have excessive boarding and disembarkation times in this day of many travelers needing to find places for their bags in the cabin. As an aside, if Boeing wants an easy and cheap way to replace the lower end 737 models with something modern and efficient with plenty of development potential, I know of a certain program that could likely be bought for cheap:)
 
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
Can't the 757 be re-engined with more modern, fuel-efficient engines?


Let's ignore the fact that the 757 program ended a decade ago and that all of the production tooling has been scrapped.
If Boeing really intended to revive the type, I'm pretty sure that Pratt, RR or GE could be persuaded to develop a current tech engine of appropriate thrust for it.
You'd still have an aircraft with excessive structural weight relative to capacity by current standards as well as a wing that wouldn't be competitive.
So, a new 757 would need to be put on a heavy diet and would probably need a new wing.
You'd still end up with a very long tube that would take an excessive amount of time to board and disembark.
I like the 757, but a new version isn't likely and would need a lot more than new engines alone.
For the cost of all of this work, Boeing may as well embark on a new widebody program to eclipse the A321 at the low end and the A330 at the top.
This won't be an aircraft with the capability in range, payload or seats of any 787 or A350 model, but it will be priced accordingly and would offer lower operating costs over the shorter segments that it would be optimized for than either the 787 or A350.
I hope that Boeing goes in this direction rather than pursuing a super 737 development, which they've also been shopping to the airlines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top