Re: 757-300?

From:         h andrew chuang <>
Date:         23 Mar 93 01:09:46 PST
References:   1
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1993.244@ohare.Chicago.COM> Karl Swartz <> 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: |
personal opinions... not speaking for GE Aircraft Engines