Re: Future of 757, 767

From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
Date:         08 Jul 95 15:01:54 
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <3tjvns$4v8@kragar.kei.com>, Jim Martin <jimartin@gate.net> wrote:
>In article <3teiri$q0t@kragar.kei.com>, vrcresci@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us
>says...

>>In the Monday July 3 issue of the Wall Street Journal there was an
>>article on Boeing.  At the tail end of the article the author says
>>that one analyst named Nicholas P. Heymann of Natwest Securities Corp is
>>soeculating that Boeing will eventually discontinue the 757 and 767
>>lines.  There was no explaination in the article of why they might do
>>this.

I saw that too and wondered what he had been smoking.  The only logic
I could see for such a statement was that Boeing's recently-announced
production rates has the 757 going down to 3 per month and the 767 to
3.5 per month.

>>It does not seem reasonable that Boeing would leave such a big hole
>>in their product offerings.

Agreed.

>Wanna guess???   757 and 767 are 20 year old technologies.

Many parts of the third-generation 737, and of the 747-400, are still
1960s technology.  Lots of things have been updated, of course, but
updates happen to the 757 and 767 too.  They're just not as dramatic
because, being newer, they don't require as many changes to keep them
current.

>737-700 and up with stretches getting into the 757 mission area with
>better fuel numbers.  777 covers most of the 767 missions-but better
>fuel numbers and standardized containers for loading.

The 737-800, the biggest member of the family, is closer to the 757
in size than the mid-sized 737-700, but it's still a good 30 seats
smaller, and only has about two-thirds the range.  That leaves lots
of market for the 757, even ignoring a possible stretch which would
be wonderful for inclusive tour operators and others who don't mind
sacrificing creature comforts.  I don't know about fuel numbers, but
pushing a 737-800 to its limit -- a mission that would be easy for a
757 -- I'd be very surprised if the 737 could match the 757.

The 757 is also a *far* better cargo aircraft, with maximum weights
well beyond anything even the biggest 737 can handle.

The 767's forte has become long, thin international markets, where a
747 is far too big.  A 777 is nearly the size of the 747-100s which
the 767s displaced, so I don't see how you could convincingly argue
that the 777 is going to eclipse the 767.  It also costs about 50%
more, which makes it pretty unappealing if you don't need the extra
capacity.  (The 767 also wins on range for now, though that won't last
long.)

Right now, here's what Boeing's lineup looks like, with ballpark mixed
class seating and *very* rough estimates of prices:

     model		seats	price
    ------------	-----	-----
    737-500,-600	 108	$29.5 million
    737-300,-700	 128	 35
    737-400		 146	 40
    737-800		 158	 43.5
    757-200		 180	 60
    767-200		 195
    767-300		 220	 80
    777-200		 300	120
    777-300		 350	140
    747-400		 420	150

Killing off the 757 and 767 would leave an enormous hole in the middle
of Boeing's product line, for no reason.

--
Karl Swartz	|INet	kls@chicago.com
1-415/854-3409	|UUCP	uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls
		|Snail	2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA
 Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com