What was the reason behind each plane and why didn't it succeed?
I know 9/11 killed the 753 & 764 production. Why did Boeing produce each one?
I know the 764 was originally designed to replace the L1011's and DC10'S. But, isn't that what
airlines are using the 763 for. What was the 753 designed for?
I know the 717 had some success. TWA & Airtran had a fleet of them?
Why didn't more airlines get them at the time?
54 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
Just a general question, have you used any of the extensive archives here on a.net to begin as a basis for your aircraft questions? I don't want to quash curiosity or discussion, but there's a lot of data here which in lengthy previous discussions talks about these and other aircraft.
Quoting mia305 (Thread starter): I know the 717 had some success. TWA & Airtran had a fleet of them?
Why didn't more airlines get them at the time?
Cost, wrong market.
Most airlines were shedding the 100-125 seat flying to regional operators, and those that weren't were not in a rush to buy new planes at the time (NW, AA).
Quoting mia305 (Thread starter): know 9/11 killed the 753 & 764 production. Why did Boeing produce each one?
I know the 764 was originally designed to replace the L1011's and DC10'S. But, isn't that what
airlines are using the 763 for. What was the 753 designed for?
The 764 was produced to satisfy requirements from Delta and Continental for an L1011 and Dc-10 replacement as you said. At one time Kenya Airways had some on order but converted them to 777s later. It was a quick and fairly cheap modification of the 767 as well as a way for Boeing to trial some new technologies like the raked wingtips.
Why more airlines didn't order it...
Well it was at a performance disadvantage vs the A330-200 which it competed with.
Many airlines had already moved to other aircraft as DC-10/L1011/A300 replacements
The 753, well it basically did ok order wise. It died along with the standard length 757. It had a limited market from the start, but was like the 764 a fairly cheap derivative to produce. Boeing also pinned alot of hopes on it being a good A300/310 replacement for intra-Europe airlines, but that never happened.
What was each one designed for should I say?
I know they we not flops but but not many orders?
I'm new to the site so plz bare with me if I ask to many questions
or redundant ones. I'm still trying to navigate the site so I don't do that anymore.
I love airplanes and aviation in general.
Quoting mia305 (Thread starter): I know the 764 was originally designed to replace the L1011's and DC10'S. But, isn't that what
airlines are using the 763 for.
The 763 is a smaller aircraft than the L-1011 and DC-10, and DL and CO wanted an aircraft that was closer in size to the widebody trijets, with no exceptions or leeway whatsoever. The 772 at the same time was too large for that role.
Both airlines threatened to order A332s unless Boeing came up with an aircraft that would have been a direct L-1011 and DC-10 replacement in terms of size. At first, Boeing offered them a 771 proposal, however, that proposal was rejected due to its poor economics, thus the 764ER was born.
Quoting mia305 (Reply 4): I'm new to the site so plz bare with me if I ask to many questions
or redundant ones. I'm still trying to navigate the site so I don't do that anymore.
I love airplanes and aviation in general.
Well let me be the first to say welcome to A.nut!!?
As mentioned, the 753 was to an extent meant to replace the A300/310. Several reasons why that didn't happen. One was moving away from capacity and into frequency, another was the excessive boarding times owing to the single-aisle nature of the beast and cumbersome loading due to the very long lower-lobe compartments. It did score mild successes, particularly with European charter companies whom often operates using steps rather than airbridges, and if you can get 3 steps on a 753 you can get the peeps in and out pretty quick.
The 764 is a somewhat different story. Build to the specification of 2 airlines, sold to no one else. Boeing had some hopes for the type back when it was first being offered to the market, but it newer managed to sway anyone from ordering either a boggo 763 or, in most cases, an A330. A -400X was proposed but was taken up by KQ only; not enough for Boeing to launch the program.
[Edited 2013-03-07 12:24:44]
I think it was a waste of time for Boeing to produce the 753 & 764 for
such small orders.
The 717 was a success and had more orders than both the
753 & 764 combined I believe.
Quoting mia305 (Reply 8): I think it was a waste of time for Boeing to produce the 753 & 764 for
such small orders.
If it kept customers 'if the family', so to speak, and caused no losses for Boeing to do so, why not build them? Neither model cannibalized sales from other Boeing planes.
What is a "boggo" 763?
This is the first I've heard of this; I'm not saying you're wrong, but I know very little about the rather obscure 764. Do you have any sources that discuss the 764 versus the 332?
Quoting VC10DC10 (Reply 10): Do you have any sources that discuss the 764 versus the 332?
I read on this site a few months ago in a thread regarding DL that both the a332 and the 764 are very close in performance. I don't know for sure which outperforms the other, but I know at least is vey happy with both.
If the 753 was a replacement for the A300/310 I'm suprised AA didn't order some to replace some of their A300's.
I know that AA use a mix of planes now to fill its shoes. Maybe it wouldve
worked for them.
Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 11): I read on this site a few months ago in a thread regarding DL that both the a332 and the 764 are very close in performance. I don't know for sure which outperforms the other, but I know at least is vey happy with both.
The 764 has somewhat lower operating costs and CASM, however, the A332 has more range and cargo capacity. Even though the A332 can theoretically make more money due to its larger cargo capacity, keep in mind that the 764 has a larger J cabin and the lost cargo profits are made up by the larger premium cabin. The 764s fly lots of high-yielding transatlantic routes, while the A332s (and A330s in general) fly more international leisure routes.
[Edited 2013-03-07 12:58:43]
Quoting B777LRF (Reply 7): As mentioned, the 753 was to an extent meant to replace the A300/310. Several reasons why that didn't happen. One was moving away from capacity and into frequency, another was the excessive boarding times owing to the single-aisle nature of the beast and cumbersome loading due to the very long lower-lobe compartments. It did score mild successes, particularly with European charter companies whom often operates using steps rather than airbridges, and if you can get 3 steps on a 753 you can get the peeps in and out pretty quick.
I would add another reason: timing. The 753 just came far too late in the 757's life cycle. If it had been offered in the early 90s you probably would have see a lot more of them (most likely at the expense of 752 order though). They are perfect for high traffic, lower yield routes such as Northeast-Florida or to LAS.
Timing also burned the 764 pretty bad as well, too little too late.
Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 2): Well (the 767-400ER) was at a performance disadvantage vs the A330-200 which it competed with.
Quoting VC10DC10 (Reply 10): This is the first I've heard of this; I'm not saying you're wrong, but I know very little about the rather obscure 764. Do you have any sources that discuss the 764 versus the 332?
Range was the primary disadvantage. The 767-400ERX sought to address this via an MTOW boost and an additional 8,000 liters of fuel capacity via a tail tank to increase nominal range by over 500nm.
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 13): The 764 has somewhat lower operating costs and CASM, however, the A332 has more range and cargo capacity.
Passenger and cargo capacity both slightly favored the 767-400ER. With identical hard product, DL's 764s seat 246 vs. 239 on the A332 and total hold capacity for the 764 is 139m3 vs. 132m3 for the A332.
[Edited 2013-03-07 13:04:10]
One thing not mentioned yet in this thread is that the 717 was really the MD-95, a McDonnell Douglas design that was supposed to be the next generation of their DC-9 family. It was designed to replace DC-9-30s (and 737-200s and whatever else in that size category), and McD had nothing else in their lineup smaler than an MD-80 at the time.
Boeing thought they could capture the 100-seat market with that plane, so they rebranded it as the 717 when they merged with MD back in the 90s (in fact, thanks to the regional jet craze of the day, the first press release for the rebranding called it the 717-200 regional jet).
The 100-seat market turned out to be a no-man's land for a while. Boeing's and Airbus's other offerings (737-600 and A318) weren't selling because they were too heavy, and many major airlines couldn't put 100-seaters at regional carriers. Within a few years, the 717 faced competition from the Embraer jets, and there was simply no market for a standalone 100-120-seat jet. As NorthStar said, the best potential customers in the US were NW and AA. NW decided to stick with their DC-9s, and AA stuck with the F-100 instead. The end result was that the few orders the plane got dried up, and Boeing didn't really have much incentive to keep the line alive since they were doing more than well enough selling 737s.
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 5): The 763 is a smaller aircraft than the L-1011 and DC-10, and DL and CO wanted an aircraft that was closer in size to the widebody trijets, with no exceptions or leeway whatsoever. The 772 at the same time was too large for that role.
Yuup and remember when the 764 came on line with DL, in a similiar configuration to the Tristar -1 which it replaced it was still 15 passengers short 287 vs 302. Of course with lower operating cost ?
Quoting ATA L1011 (Reply 17): Yuup and remember when the 764 came on line with DL, in a similiar configuration to the Tristar -1 which it replaced it was still 15 passengers short 287 vs 302. Of course with lower operating cost
Basically, the 764ER gave up a bit of passengers for a bit more cargo capacity (the 764ER has more cargo capacity than the L-1011).
The production of the B 757-300 was cancelled when the production of the 757 was cancelled.
Not all ordered 753 were produced. Boeing made some deal with Icelandair for the two not jet delivered.
I do not know if more orders were cancelled by Boeing.
Today every 753 produced is in service with the airline (excluding mergers) which bought it, not one on the second hand market.
Still more than with the 752 there is no air plane in planing by any manufacturer replacing it.
It can be that the decision to stop production was premature and they could have sold more of them.
Perhaps Boeing saw an overlap with the than planned 787-3, nobody expected than the delay in the program.
I don't think it's fair to say they weren't a success. As AeroWesty says, if a company (Boeing) can rework an existing product (B757 and B767) to suit specific needs of key (and quite large, overall) customers at minimal cost to itself, and can thereby KEEP that customer into the future, then that sounds like success to me. To an extent the B717, as a development of the DC-9/MD80/MD90 series and with 156 produced, is a similar story.
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 20): Today every 753 produced is in service with the airline (excluding mergers) which bought it, not one on the second hand market.
That's not true. The ATA 757-300s went to Continental when the former went bankrupt.
The 753 and 764 were arguably offered too late in the respective 757 and 767 program lives. Had they been offered earlier, no doubt orders would have been greater. Having said that, I'm sure Boeing was hoping for more than 55 and 38 orders respectively.
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 20): Boeing made some deal with Icelandair for the two not jet delivered.
Icelandair ordered 2 and took delivery of 1 753. So only one was cancelled.
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 20): Today every 753 produced is in service with the airline (excluding mergers) which bought it, not one on the second hand market.
Not quite. The 12 753's delivered to ATA were picked up by CO.
Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 19): The MD-95 was in fact launched with just one airline order for 50 plus 50 options. The airline was Valujet and we know what happened to it.
Prior to that, a heated order battle was had between the MD-95 and the 736 from SAS. The 736 won that order. That was a blow to MDD who thought they had the inside track at SAS with their large M80 fleet.
Quoting hoMsar (Reply 22): That's not true. The ATA 757-300s went to Continental when the former went bankrupt.
Ok I missed those four. The airlines using them seem to like them.
25 Polot: Not to sound pedantic or anything, but it was actually 12. ATA sold 8 of them to CO in ~2005, and CO picked up the remaining 4 after ATA went bankrup
26 Viscount724: Far more, 155 717s compared to 38 764s and 55 753s. Two other Boeing models with less than successful commecial results should also be mentioned...th
27 mia305: If Boeing wanted to could they restart the 753 production with greater success now than before?
28 Viscount724: No, demand would be zero and I believe Boeing destroyed the 757 tooling after production ended.
29 AeroWesty: No, all of the tooling and rigs to build a 757 of any type have been destroyed.
30 mia305: Didn't the MD90 suffer the same fate for the same reasons as the 753 & 764? A little off topic but similar to the question.
31 mia305: Interesting to know.
32 brilondon: The 747SP had only a few missions that it could actually fly because of the limited payload to make any money on and only a few airlines were targete
33 mjoelnir: Does anybody know how many B 757-300 were cancelled by Boeing when they shut down production? Production lists I have found do not mention any non bui
34 Polot: I'm pretty sure none where cancelled by Boeing. IIRC Boeing went around with a "final call" so to speak telling airlines that without anymore orders
35 mjoelnir: At least one order by Icelandair was definitely cancelled by Boeing. It was done with a friendly agreement, but it was done.
36 Deltal1011man: Depend on a bunch of factors. the 764s holds more but the 332 can fly longer. Not really the PW powered birds like DL but the CF6 332s at QF use to d
37 Max Q: That is not true. I have flown more than a few flights on the 764 over 12 hours. One of them was EWR-HNL in the winter with very strong headwinds whi
38 7BOEING7: What the 764 lacked from the beginning was power.
39 Max Q: This is not true either, it has plenty of power, if you compare power to weight ratios for other commercial jet Aircraft you will be able to see that
40 cornutt: There have since been internal admissions circulated around Boeing that the 717 suffered from "not invented here" syndrome, and that Boeing sales did
41 avek00: The industry effects of 9/11 effectively killed off hope of significant future sales of all three birds (plus the 747-400).
42 TWA772LR: The 717 should have stayed in production because it was a better plane than the 736 for what it was designed for, the 100-120 seat, short range marke
43 TN486: My understanding was that after the "merger", there were outstanding contractual obligations (I think the obligation was to build 150 or so) of the MD
44 thorntot: ValuJet, the 717's launch customer (MD-95 it was called then) had placed an order for 50 firm with 50 options and paid a substantial deposit. ValuJet
45 BlueSky1976: At Delta perhaps yes, but at many other carriers, especially network ones, A330s is their bread and butter maker, when it comes to the high-yielding
46 ha763: The 764ERX also required an upgraded engine that was also going to used for the proposed 747X models. Once the 747X proposals were dropped, so was th
47 RWA380: IMO, both the 753 and 764 are good aircraft for Hawaii - Mainland routes, at least NW and DL thought so. My first 753 was SEA-HNL-PDX, and my first 76
49 PanHAM: I did not read vall the posts here so I may duplicate. LH tested the 753 as a potential A300 replacement on high density domestic and European routes
50 sankaps: Precisely. You can add Singapore Airlines, Qantas, Cathay, and others to this list as well. In the case of Delta as someone else pointed out, they ha
51 packsonflight: The arrival of the A321 and 737-800 killed the 757-200 because they could serve 80% of the routes the 75 was dispatched on a lot cheaper, and as a re
52 SpaceshipDC10: At MDC, managers had been sleeping on their laurels for too long. They had somehow the same approach with OS and SR, both of which turned to Airbus r
53 NBGSkyGod: You are more or less correct, from talking with folks from MDC, Boeing was under-cutting the 717 before it left Long Beach. When Boeing sent the 717
54 RomeoBravo: I think the 764 and 753 would have been quite successful if they had come out earlier. Not sure if Boeing had resources to do that at the time however
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.