Re: Future of 757, 767

From: (H Andrew Chuang)
Organization: International Internet Association.
Date:         24 Jul 95 03:05:09 
References:   1 2 3 4
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <>,
Peter Herrmann <> wrote:
>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

The 757 was originally designed to replace the 727.  (I remember an early
757 ad saying that it would cost the same to operate the 727 and the new
757 which had 40 more seats.)  Furthermore, it was no coincidence that the
727 production line was closed not long after the 757 was launched.  The
757 has been doing quite well since the late 80s, but Boeing definitely
failed its original intent.  Arguably, the second-generation B737 did help
Boeing to fill the 727 gap.  Despite being a smaller aircraft, my
observation is that there are more 727s replaced by the 737 than 757
partly due to, IMHO, the deregulation of the airline industry in the US.

There was another 150-seat project that Boeing had seriously considered:
the 7J7 with prop fan/unducted fan.  Boeing did not proceed with the
project because the new engine technology was perceived as too risky by the
airline industry, and the oil crisis had subsided.

>The 737-400 could not compete with the A320 and the 737-800 is
>quite late after more than 700 A320s are sold already.

It's more like 600 A320s, unless you include the A321 and A319.
Also, I don't know if the 737-800 is "quite late".  There are still some
1,300 B727 yet to be replaced.  The A319/320/321 is a well-rounded
family of narrow-body aircraft.  However, with nearly 3,000 B737s in
service and on order, Boeing has an extremely huge B737 customer base.

  H Andrew Chuang