Re: 757-300?

From:         h andrew chuang <>
Date:         25 Mar 93 12:37:24 PST
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Karl Swartz wrote:
>airlines constantly driving prices down they'll do anything they can
>to reduce costs, and if they can get away with operating an aircraft
>that's less comfortable for passengers to do so, so be it.

Depending on the market needs.  For short-haul operations, cargo requirement
is usually low, a narrow-body airplane serves the market requirement well.
For long-haul operations, cargo requirement is often, but not always, high.
Therefore, a wide-body airplane may be desirable.  If an airline is
targeting long-haul, tourist-oriented routes, then 757-300's lower cost
should make sense.  However, most airlines are more eager to attract higher 
yield full-fare economy-, business- and first-class passengers, 757-300's
configuration definitely doesn't make sense.  Just as an example, Singapore
Airlines chose to replace its very young 757 fleet (~ 5-year old and only 4
planes) with the A310 a few years ago.  If the 757 really has a significant
cost advantage, that would not have happened!

>H. Andrew Chuang wrote:
>>Ironically, AA ordered a lot of PW2000's without ordering the 757,
>>and later cancelled that P&W order.
>What on earth for?  Did they buy them in anticipation of a 757 order
>which did not, at the time, materialize?  I've never heard of anyone
>buying the engines before the airframe, though with Crandall at the
>controls I suppose just about anything can happen.

Yes, the engines were ordered for an anticipated order of 757's.  That was 
definitely a first, and P&W even advertised that event as a breakthrough
in the industry.  I don't remember exactly why AA didn't follow through with
the 757 order, I think they claimed the economy was bad but they still
ordered the 767 then.

>>IMHO, GE is very lucky that it only misses the 757 market, since the
>>757 is probably the least successful Boeing program.
>While the 757 got off to an exceedingly slow start, deliveries caught
>up with and surpassed the 767 about a year ago.  
> .....
>I'd think the 757 is doing quite nicely for Boeing.

Well, I don't agree.  The 757 owns the 180-passenger market by itself (that
is, before the short-haul A321 was launched, but I don't think the A321
should be classified in the same class as the short- to medium-haul 757),
while the 767 is competing directly with the A300/A310.  Therefore, if one
looks at the total sales of the 757 and the combined 767/A300/A310 sales,
one must question how on earth did Boeing come up with the 180-passenger
design, especially when it was supposed to replace more than a thousand
727's! (If I remember correctly, the 757 was designed based on the assumption
that the airports would not expand as fast as the traffic would grow, 
therefore a higher capacity plane than the 727 was needed.  Also, the total
operating cost for one trip on a 757 would remain the same as a 727, so with
the extra 40 seats on the 757, the cost per seat was reduced by more than
25%.) Moreover, from engine manufacturers' standpoint (IMHO), PW2000 would
need a lot more 757 sales to make business sense, because PW2000 has only
one commerical application (and the military application is not doing that
well, either)!  That's why I said GE was lucky, if GE did launch the CF6-32,
the 757 pie is simply too small for three engine manufacturers!  Therefore,
I still think the 757 is the least successful Boeing jet program because it
did not achieve what it was supposed to achieve (to replace 727).  The 737
program became so successful, again IMHO, because of Boeing's inability to
convince customers to replace their 727's with 757's.  That was when Boeing
literally resurrected the 737 program by modernizing the 737, and hit the
jackpot.  I think the 737 has replaced more 727's than the 757, and I don't
really think that was Boeing's envision when they lauched the 757.  (Don't
get me wrong, I have nothing against Boeing, I think Boeing is a great
company building great airplanes, they just made a small mistake with their
wrong-sized 757's.  Nonetheless, they were able to maintain the market by
improving the 737.  That's why I think Boeing is a great company because
Boeing was able to timely correct their mistakes.)
|  H. Andrew Chuang         || Tel:   (513) 774-5267          |
|  LEA                      || Fax:   (513) 774-5171          |
|  GE Aircraft Engines      || Email: |
personal opinions... not speaking for GE Aircraft Engines