entropy

And the BA 318's that do LCY-JFK, and the BBJ's with extra tanks. I have no issue with those. There would be far worse rides than an EMB-175 with 1-1 lie flat seats.

luckypierre

Would't the 753 with GEnx power and all the accumulated tweaks, short of new wings, from 87 and 777x development about meet the requirements for this niche product? The higher carriage should eliminate one of the 37 reengining headaches.

mduell

Doubt it, you'd still get killed with 757 mx burden.

What 787/777X "tweaks" are you proposing engineering on to the 757 airframe?

Plus with the higher passenger load and heavier engines you'd be short on fuel due to weight.

milypan

The problem with any sort of 737-9ER is that the takeoff performance will be abysmal (which is saying something, since the 900 and MAX9 are already terrible in this dimension). Basically it will frequently need to ditch passengers or do technical stops on longer routes.

Recognizing this, Boeing is now shopping around 737-8ERX concept. This would maintain reasonable takeoff performance while enabling flights up to 4,000 nm. The problem, of course, is that it would be much smaller than an A321LR, which itself is already a bit smaller than the 752. Hard to see UA going with this aircraft.

For those thinking about a "757-MAX" – I love that aircraft from a performance standpoint, but the 757-MAX just doesn't pencil out.

bocastephen

I think we're talking about a new 757 variant with similar capacity to today's 753 in a single aisle configuration and sufficient range for east-coast NA through western-central Europe.

Same fuselage design but new engines, systems, avionics, and wing - perhaps utilizing the carbon fiber footprint from the 787 for part, or all of the updated design.

I think with this approach, you have operating costs not too far from a 739ER with greater range, passenger and cargo capacity - although Boeing might see that as taking away from 73X project sales, and while I can't blame them for thinking this way, such a 757 would be a far more versatile aircraft than the 73X given the industry chant of adding capacity (seats) without frequency.

jtet

Sure. One is Privatair with their 737 configured as an all business class aircraft currently under the SAS banner from Stavanger to Houston. http://privatair.com/current-services

I had some Houston based colleagues who really enjoyed a AMS (?) to Houston flights which don't seem to be offered currently. I never flew on them myself.

entropy

IPTE configured 763's aren't much different in capacity than a 752. What they really "want" is a lighter MTOW 787 (e.g. the 787-3) with 4500nm range. Now that Boeing has the 787 line operating... looking at adding a lighter optimized cousin may be a better option than re-engining or trying to scratch more life out of the 1960's 737.

a 4500 nm, ~200 passenger range aircraft would be able to do all of the 757 range limited operations, with only a slight increase in pax capacity. If Boeing positions it properly, it could also represent a better acquisition for the TATL market than a much heavier 7500nm range solution.

bocastephen

I'm fine with this approach as well - I much prefer a twin aisle aircraft, but the achilles heel of the 787 is the 737-sized seats UA put in coach, something that had absolutely no rational justification because the cabin can accommodate 18-19" wide seats without any change in capacity.

These seats were nothing but a middle finger aimed at customers.

milypan

At that point you might as well just build a new aircraft. Remember, the 757's fuselage design actually dates back to the 707.

bocastephen

That's what I suggested - a narrow-body version of the 787

fly18725

Please explain how you can use 18-19" wide seats without a change in capacity vis-a-vie ~17" seats.

milypan

At that point it will just be a clean-sheet design. They'll surely apply some things they learned from developing the 787, and every aircraft before it, but they won't share any common components.

mduell

Ok, now you're talking a $5B+ development program.

WAY too much wing for the proposed airplane. Literally 2x what it needs to be.

Trip costs would be way above 739ER.

luckypierre

Derate the lowest power GENx engine to around 45K
eliminate tail skid
rework crown
rework leading edge slats
improve elevator trim bias
raked wingtip?

rch4u

That's been Jeff's primary way to stick it to sUA.