Re: Future of 757, 767

From:         herrmann@ls4.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (Peter Herrmann)
Organization: University of Dortmund
Date:         17 Jul 95 04:29:30 
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6
Followups:    1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure


In article <airliners.1995.1060@ohare.Chicago.COM>, kls@ohare.Chicago.COM
(Karl Swartz) writes:

|>John Nance, in The Sport Game, claims this was a major error by Boeing
|>since the 727-200 had a market to itself in the 150-seat class, and
|>the smaller 757 would have been the logical replacement.  The 757 as
|>built was too big for this market, which left room for Airbus to come
|>in with the A320, much as McDonnell Douglas' insistence on building a
|>tri-jet DC-10 in direct competition with the L-1011, instead of doing
|>a smaller twin-jet, left the door open for the A300.  With delivery of
|>the 700th 757 coming soon, it's hard to see his logic, but remember
|>how the 757 got off to an awfully slow start and only started selling
|>briskly after years of market growth.

It was definitely right to build the 757-200. But, IMHO, John Nance is
correct. Boeing's decision, not to build the 757-100, was an enormous
strategic error which facilitated Airbus (and MD) to attack the 150-seat
market. The 737-400 could not compete with the A320 and the 737-800 is
quite late after more than 700 A320s are sold already. Further, the
A320s opens the way to its derivations A321 and A319 (and, perhaps, to
the A330s and A340s) in many airlines.

A useful scenario might have been to start with the 757-100 in the early
Eighties and to offer the 757-200 four or five years later. But, of
course, it is easier to realize this now than in 1980. :-)

--
Peter Herrmann, Dipl.Inf. herrmann@ls4.informatik.uni-dortmund.de
Dept.of.Comp.Science IV   Subj.: Distr. Systems / Comp. Networks
University of Dortmund
D-44221 Dortmund