From: h andrew chuang <chuang_hsin@ae.ge.com>
Date: 23 Mar 93 01:09:46 PST
References: 1
Followups: 1
View raw article
or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1993.244@ohare.Chicago.COM> Karl Swartz <kls@ditka.chicago.com> wrote:
>The current Airliners Monthly News (AMN, March 1993) includes the
>following on p. 26:
>
> A 23ft 4in stretched fuselage version of the 757 is being
> considered by Boeing, along with a long-range model with
> increased gross weights.
>
I really doubt Boeing will seriously consider this program. With the
stretch, a "757-300" will have similar range and capacity as a 767-200.
With the long range version, it will compete with the 767-200ER. It just
doesn't make sense that Boeing would want to compete with itself. Even if
the streched 757's will have significant performance advantages over the
767's, a 757 is still a narrow body, and a narrow body configuration for
long haul operations will simply irritate airline passengers!
IMHO, the only 757 derivative that makes sense is a shortened version to
fill in the gap between 737-400's and 757-200's (as well as to compete with
A320's). However, this will be feasible only if a derated PW2000 or
RB211-535 is available. To "re-engine" the 757 derivative with CFM56's or
V2500's most likely will not be well-received by current 757 customers.
Perhaps, the reason that the 757 is the only aircraft in the Boeing family
that does not have a derivative is because Boeing doesn't want to cut into
either the 737 or the 767 market. (Since I mentioned that re-engining a 757
may not make sense, I would also like to point out that Airbus may face the
same dilemma when they want to grow the A340's beyond the -300.)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
| H. Andrew Chuang || Tel: (513) 774-5267 |
| LEA || Fax: (513) 774-5171 |
| GE Aircraft Engines || Email: chuang@hp659.crd.ge.com |
---------------------------------------------------------------
personal opinions... not speaking for GE Aircraft Engines
