Boeing 757 production to end

announced today. The line's being closed down with only 18 or so orders
left at this stage.

"Not the Karl Orff" wrote in message
...

announced today. The line's being closed down with only 18 or so orders
left at this stage.

While the 757 will end production, the planes will continue to operate for
many, many years to come. This is because the plane's pretty low seat-mile
costs will ensure they will continue to fly medium-range routes well past
2010, and possible future re-engining programs will allow the 757 to meet
ICAO Stage IV noise rules and reduce fuel burn for even lower seat-mile
costs.

--
Raymond Chuang
Sacramento, CA USA

Raymond Chuang wrote:
While the 757 will end production, the planes will continue to operate for
many, many years to come. This is because the plane's pretty low seat-mile
costs will ensure they will continue to fly medium-range routes well past
2010, and possible future re-engining programs will allow the 757 to meet
ICAO Stage IV noise rules and reduce fuel burn for even lower seat-mile
costs.

I doubt very much that they will bother with re-engining 757s. The planes will
slowly be retired. How many are already in some desert parking lots ? Remember
that the 737-900 will probably provide better economics and commonality (don't
737 pilots cost a lot less than 757/767 pilots ?)

Airlines are rationalising their fleets. Once all the truly old planes like
727, DC-10 and 737-200 are gone, the next step will be the stray planes like
the 757.

Boeing's plans are now pretty clear except for 717 and 747.

737 will encompass 737 and 757.
7E7 replaces 767
777 fills the gap beyond the 7E7 all the way to part of 747 market.

Current planes that are not part of that core don't have a bright future.


If Star doesn't choose the 717, perhaps Boeing will cancel it sooner than the
767. But as soon as the 7E7 becomes more real, I expect to see 767 order
totally dry up and Boeing will then close that line.

I doubt very much that they will bother with re-engining 757s. The
planes will slowly be retired. How many are already in some desert
parking lots ? Remember that the 737-900 will probably provide
better economics and commonality (don't 737 pilots cost a lot less
than 757/767 pilots ?)

The -900 is certainly cheaper to operate, but the 757 is bigger, has a
longer range, and can be certified for ETOPS 180. There are plenty of
long thin routes that a 757 can do but a -900 can't.

It's a fair question whether by the time re-engining becomes an issue,
it'd make more sense to get a 7E7 instead, or there'll be an even more
stretched version of the 737 that can do ETOPS.

"John R. Levine" wrote in message
...

The -900 is certainly cheaper to operate, but the 757 is bigger, has a
longer range, and can be certified for ETOPS 180. There are plenty of
long thin routes that a 757 can do but a -900 can't.

It's a fair question whether by the time re-engining becomes an issue,
it'd make more sense to get a 7E7 instead, or there'll be an even more
stretched version of the 737 that can do ETOPS.

The B737-700 is ETOPS 180 certified so why couldn;t the B737-900X Become
ETOPS Certified?

If you need proof look at Air Pacific that operates the B737-700 (or -800
not sure which) Fiji-HNL-YVR and Aloha operates the B737-700 HNL-YVR and
OGG-YVR

In article ,
AJC wrote:


I believe the 739 also has the problem that it has insufficient exits
for one-class/high density operations making it useless for airlines
like Ryanair, Virgin Blue, etc.

Unless airport design changes to allow use of more than 1 door, the 757
and A321s (and high density 737-900s if one ever materialises) are not
very popular for LCC as they take too long to load and unload.

(John R. Levine) wrote in message ...

The -900 is certainly cheaper to operate, but the 757 is bigger, has a
longer range, and can be certified for ETOPS 180. There are plenty of
long thin routes that a 757 can do but a -900 can't.

It's a fair question whether by the time re-engining becomes an issue,
it'd make more sense to get a 7E7 instead, or there'll be an even more
stretched version of the 737 that can do ETOPS.

The passenger capacity/range offered by the 757 would seem to leave a
bit of a hole in Boeing's offerings once production is completed. I'd
guess the market research and order books tell Boeing it isn't a niche
worth going after.


It doesn't appear Airbus has anything now or planned for this niche
either.

uh - 321 maybe? a mite underpowered but still in the same size range
"Robert Sawatsky" wrote in message
om...
(John R. Levine) wrote in message
...

The -900 is certainly cheaper to operate, but the 757 is bigger, has a
longer range, and can be certified for ETOPS 180. There are plenty of
long thin routes that a 757 can do but a -900 can't.

It's a fair question whether by the time re-engining becomes an issue,
it'd make more sense to get a 7E7 instead, or there'll be an even more
stretched version of the 737 that can do ETOPS.

The passenger capacity/range offered by the 757 would seem to leave a
bit of a hole in Boeing's offerings once production is completed. I'd
guess the market research and order books tell Boeing it isn't a niche
worth going after.


It doesn't appear Airbus has anything now or planned for this niche
either.

In article ,
AJC wrote:


At most of the airports Ryanair use airbridges are unheard of, it's
stairs front and back and you're pushed out the doors almost as soon
as the wheels have stopped turning.

Good idea. Unfortunately, many airports with lavish bevies of
jetbridges don't have stairs. And for some strange reason, passengers
seem to prefer jet bridges (I like to get off as fast as i can).

Note that the early model 737s often had integral stairs front and aft
(nice!) as well as tail stairs of 727s and DC-9s (and early model
MD-80s). Can;t remember the last time I used the stairs f any such
however.

"Robert Sawatsky" wrote in message
om...
(John R. Levine) wrote in message
...

The -900 is certainly cheaper to operate, but the 757 is bigger, has a
longer range, and can be certified for ETOPS 180. There are plenty of
long thin routes that a 757 can do but a -900 can't.

It's a fair question whether by the time re-engining becomes an issue,
it'd make more sense to get a 7E7 instead, or there'll be an even more
stretched version of the 737 that can do ETOPS.

The passenger capacity/range offered by the 757 would seem to leave a
bit of a hole in Boeing's offerings once production is completed. I'd
guess the market research and order books tell Boeing it isn't a niche
worth going after.

It doesn't appear Airbus has anything now or planned for this niche
either.

I think you can bet that they will. Airbus seems to have made surpassing
Boeing at every point their top priority. If there's a market they corner
because Boeing has pulled out of it, they'll most likely go for it.

--
Goliath & Wildwing's Storage Room
http://anatidae.homestead.com/