737 Max compared to Airbus NEO

[Ecl!pse]

If you need hot/high performance, the 757 really can't be beat. And it ain't really the engine that gives it good field performance - it's mostly the wing. The wing is so large it can get you off the ground nearly anywhere.

Unfortunately, that same wing is the reason the 757 has been killed by 737-900ER's and A321's on the overwhelming majority of benign domestic routes and why a 757-MAX wouldn't fair any better. If you don't use the field performance, you're paying for it in fuel burn at cruise. A 757-MAX would close some of the fuel burn gap relative to the A321NEO & 737-MAX 9, but wouldn't overcome it. Only pricing would save the 757 at that point, and pricing at a discount would then only eat into 737 MAX sales.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Sadly, some guys will do that crap when you're glaring out the window and simultaneously twist/pull/verbalize right as it's hitting ALT*.

Then you turn around, look at the FMA and HOLY CRAP man, STOPPIT!!

Blah... if you're gonna smooth it out, you gotta do it early, and the only time I do that is when I'm already doing a V/S descent or climb.

One thing I really like on the 330 program that I hope migrates to the 320 is how they've emphasized that the turb speeds are only for mod/severe turbulence. Drove me nuts how the moment we'd hit a bump on the 320 that guys would immediately reach up and slow down. "Ugh, seriously?" That or we'd hit a couple bumps and the CA would be staring at me "you gonna slow down??" "Well, if you really want to..."

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Kind of cool looking slightly back and up from the cockpit and seeing the wings, eh?

330's my ride, but I tihnk it'll be a bit.

Truth! Particularly what said wing is flying over... northern scotland, greenland...

I see myself parking on this thing for a while.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Sadly, some guys will do that crap when you're glaring out the window and simultaneously twist/pull/verbalize right as it's hitting ALT*.

Then you turn around, look at the FMA and HOLY CRAP man, STOPPIT!!

If you can't tell me why you're mashing buttans, perhaps you shouldn't be mashing them.

 

[Bear]

A 757 worked for this mission.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

How do you like hitting 390 at .81 largely off the bat in the 330?

SHUT YOWER PIE HOLE, @Screaming_Emu

Y so slow?

 

[Screaming_Emu]

330's my ride, but I tihnk it'll be a bit.

But you need to come party in Asia!

 

[wheelsup]

Kinda-sorta doesn't cut it into a lot of places. Kinda-sorta not being able to make it out of EGE if you fail an engine, with a full load of people. American either uses the 757, or a 319. There is a reason they are using hot rods, not sleds. Sure, there are a lot of airplanes that can also do it. But when you are weight restricted in a 321 from LAX to DFW because you need enough fuel to get to an alternate, and you are having to bump passengers when a 757 can be filled up, and still haul a boat load of mail in the belly.......

I can't for the life of me even think of a time that would even pop up. I mostly do transcon on the 321 and have never been weight restricted despite having alternates and going to places like SFO and SEA, where it's common to have one.

Point being, there is a reason that the 757 is still so popular. And the bean counters have it figured out, not you and me. You can still be a jack of all trades, and a master of none. As far as a 321 that can do something a 75 can't?

Make money

I'd like to see what it costs for a 321 vs a 757 to go from say, LAX to ORD with the same amount of passengers, and the same amount of cargo in the belly, at the same mach, and same altitude. I'd bet that it's a pretty close comparison. Now, put some newer engines that are more efficient on the 757, and it would probably be even closer, but the 75 would still be able to get in and out of EGE, with a full load of self loading meat bags, and all their crap plus some more in the belly. They should have never destroyed to tooling. The 321 is it's replacement, and it's no comparison. It just can't do what the 757 can.

A loaded 321 burns about 1000#/hr less than the 757. Now throw in reduced mx costs. Airframe commonality with your 319/320 fleet. List goes on.

Yes. The 757 has some specific missions. Do yourself a favor, there was a news report following an AA flight some years ago and it tracked how much money it made, look it up. On the transcon it made around $500. If you flew a 757 instead of a 321 on that leg, you just lost money.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

That news report on the AA flight was done in the "dark ages." The economics have changed significantly now.

Btw- the A330 is the biggest money maker at DL, with the 757-300 coming in a close second place.

 

[Ecl!pse]

That news report on the AA flight was done in the "dark ages." The economics have changed significantly now.

Btw- the A330 is the biggest money maker at DL, with the 757-300 coming in a close second place.

I think that the economics are only changing through lower ownership costs. The performance and cash-operating-costs aren't getting any better - it's a gas-hog compared to the A321 and 739. Since the 757 has fallen out of favor recently, I suspect 757 market values have come down enough (or A321/739 market values have gone up enough) to make the overall economic package compelling - which I think would explain the China Southern birds.

Everyone I've talked to loves the 757-300. I truly believe that it would have outsold the 757-200 if 9/11 had not occurred. It was an unfortunate victim of unlucky timing.

 

[SeanD]

The pilots I know who have flown both the 757 200 and 300 have overwhelmingly said the 300 kinda sucks.

 

[Ecl!pse]

The pilots I know who have flown both the 757 200 and 300 have overwhelmingly said the 300 kinda sucks.

Good thing they aren't in charge of counting the beans

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

The 300 has great economics but is a dog compared to the -200... it's the A321 of the series, though with longer legs (easily hawaii capable). You'll just be spending some time at FL280.

The problem we are running into with the 739s is that they have legs, but can't carry the payload... so what you're saving in gas you're leaving behind in the form of people and cargo at the gate. The A321 would run into the same issues depending on runway available and weather/winds- DL doesn't have the extended range tanks installed, so ours are firmly a 4 hour jet.

This is why the 757s are coming out of the desert... with gas on the low side, the slight increase in burn on a 757-200 (about 500 lbs an hour) will haul it all and go the distance.

 

[FlyingAccountant]

That news report on the AA flight was done in the "dark ages." The economics have changed significantly now.

Yeah, IIRC, the one I'm thinking of was from an MSNBC special a decade ago and the flight was a 767-200 flying JFK-LAX(or LAX-JFK).

This is why the 757s are coming out of the desert... with gas on the low side, the slight increase in burn on a 757-200 (about 500 lbs an hour) will haul it all and go the distance.

Life is good when gas is cheap and profits are in the 10 figures, ehh?

The bean counting wizards in Atlanta are all about managing capex, which has worked out fantastically for them. Why buy new build aircraft when gas is cheap when you can save a shed load of cash by bringing old stuff out of retirement?

 

[wheelsup]

The bean counting wizards in Atlanta are all about managing capex, which has worked out fantastically for them. Why buy new build aircraft when gas is cheap when you can save a shed load of cash by bringing old stuff out of retirement?

Well it's a gamble. You're gambling gas remains cheap. If prices go up suddenly those "cheap" 757's become expensive. And if you suddenly want new planes, get in line, there are 5000 orders ahead of you. I think I speak for everyone when I say I hope gas remains cheap, but buying new is certainly a gamble too.

I like Delta's thoughts and had gas not gone up I have a hunch AA would have 283 refurbished S80's right now. AA has been the same way for the most part. It's Parker who buys these planes and loads up on debt, it's his MO.

 

[Ecl!pse]

The 300 has great economics but is a dog compared to the -200... it's the A321 of the series, though with longer legs (easily hawaii capable). You'll just be spending some time at FL280.

The problem we are running into with the 739s is that they have legs, but can't carry the payload... so what you're saving in gas you're leaving behind in the form of people and cargo at the gate. The A321 would run into the same issues depending on runway available and weather/winds- DL doesn't have the extended range tanks installed, so ours are firmly a 4 hour jet.

This is why the 757s are coming out of the desert... with gas on the low side, the slight increase in burn on a 757-200 (about 500 lbs an hour) will haul it all and go the distance.

Yep - it's pretty much a universal truth that the stretched/heavier family member will have worse field and payload/range performance than the smaller family members. The 753 is not immune to this.

The NEO's & MAX's should help alleviate some of the payload constraints on the long-stage flights, like HI and possibly TATL, eliminating a few more markets from the 757's repertoire. Where they won't necessarily help is in the extreme hot/high markets - those markets will either need to keep 757s or downgauge to A319's/737-700's.

 

[mshunter]

I can't for the life of me even think of a time that would even pop up. I mostly do transcon on the 321 and have never been weight restricted despite having alternates and going to places like SFO and SEA, where it's common to have one.



Make money



A loaded 321 burns about 1000#/hr less than the 757. Now throw in reduced mx costs. Airframe commonality with your 319/320 fleet. List goes on.

Yes. The 757 has some specific missions. Do yourself a favor, there was a news report following an AA flight some years ago and it tracked how much money it made, look it up. On the transcon it made around $500. If you flew a 757 instead of a 321 on that leg, you just lost money.

I was bumped from my ride to work, because the needed an alternate from LAX to DFW, and they were weight restricted. When the gate agent comes down to the flight deck with that look on her face....

You can supplement the extra fuel burn with extra stuff in the belly.

As for the news article, you look it up. You made the claim. And if it's any of the main stream news, I'll take it with a grain of salt.

But like I've said in previous posts, the 75 fills a mission that the airlines need, and cost is figured into that. And getting rid of the tooling was a mistake, no matter how you slice it, because they are being dug out of the desert and put into service. If that wasn't the case (pulling them out of the desert), you'd have a pretty compelling argument. But they are, so I'll trust those in charge of that stuff, that they see the bigger picture.

They are making money right now, all of them. So they are getting something right. Some of that is putting 75's back into service.

 

[derg]

Y so slow?

I pre-told you to SHUT YOWER PIE HOLE.

You don't want the wrath of Doug:

 

[wheelsup]

I was bumped from my ride to work, because the needed an alternate from LAX to DFW, and they were weight restricted. When the gate agent comes down to the flight deck with that look on her face....

You can supplement the extra fuel burn with extra stuff in the belly.

As for the news article, you look it up. You made the claim. And if it's any of the main stream news, I'll take it with a grain of salt.

But like I've said in previous posts, the 75 fills a mission that the airlines need, and cost is figured into that. And getting rid of the tooling was a mistake, no matter how you slice it, because they are being dug out of the desert and put into service. If that wasn't the case (pulling them out of the desert), you'd have a pretty compelling argument. But they are, so I'll trust those in charge of that stuff, that they see the bigger picture.

They are making money right now, all of them. So they are getting something right. Some of that is putting 75's back into service.

When you are a network planner at a major airline then I will think your opinions carry weight. For now you analyze based on unknowns. You don't know what you don't know so to speak.

I really don't know why they bumped you. Maybe it was to get another passenger on. I've had gate agents be misinformed before, or make excuses to avoid confrontation. But suffice to say what you experienced is not anything near normal, and I can see how if you believe it is, why you would have such feelings for the airplane.

I pulled up a DFW-LAX flight (headwinds vs tailwinds going the other way) on an A321 recently. This flight could have potentially flown DFW-LAX, full of pax, then flown to PHX and still landed legally with required reserves. And that was without putting on more gas.

 

[jtrain609]

I like turtles.