andrewwm

I've flown on the ANA 3-3-3 configuration several times and I can GUARANTEE you that they are not 18.5" wide. The maximum width the seat can be and still have legal aisles is 17". If the seats were all 18.5" there would not even be space for aisles. The interior of the 787 at armrest level is 16 inches less than the 777, so how could it be possible to have 3-3-3 and identical seat width as the 777?

Huge difference. The 757 line was shut down, many machine parts of the line were destroyed, the supply line for vendor parts terminated, and the jigs put into storage. The 767 line is still open today. A 767-200 is just a small mod of the 767, so requires very few specialized parts beyond what is typically used to make a 767-300 (essentially all they do is just delete a few frames from the build).

It's not like the 757 line was left untouched, ready for use again with a light dusting. It would take a restart of the supply chain, recreation of many machine tools, and reassembly of the jigs, plus some new assembly space. To make the airplane competitive, you'd need a new wing, engine, and flight controls plus a full new certification campaign. If you're going to do all of that you might as well just build a new airplane from scratch.

tuolumne

No, Boeing started making the 762 again on an already open line. They put in new bins, so what....that's far removed from outfitting the plane with a "new wing, engines, and avionics". How could you even remotely compare the two? I hope you realize that the 757 line was shuttered years ago, while the 767 line is still open today.

bocastephen

I never compared the 762 situation with a new 757 - where did you get that from?

I only said the 762 line was re-opened for PMCO which has nothing to do with designing a new airplane.

I have a call in to my ANA rep to confirm this, but the 787-8 has 16.9" seats and the 787-9 has the 18.5" seats (per online resources) in the 9-across configuration. If they clarify, I will correct my claim - however, the new JAL seats are an obvious and very well publicized new feature across many aircraft with its own website, including the 737-800.

Red68

Well what Boeing ought to do is to begin the design on the future generation 737 with a 787 style composite fuselage. Make the 757 replacement the large variant of this new aircraft and downsize from there for more direct 737 size replacements. Start with a clean sheet and cover the range of these two airplane. Make the 757 replacement the first one out of the chute.

Baze

Don't you all think that if there was a huge demand for a direct 757 replacement it would be in the works? If the demand was there I don't think Boeing or Airbus would ignore it.

bocastephen

Airbus isn't ignoring it, hence the A321NEO concept - whether or not they sell enough to actually bring the plane to market is another story, especially given the A380 project has descended into a disaster with the airplane missing all kinds of sales targets now the initial hype is long over.

My personal opinion - neither aircraft should really be on the drawing board especially with the flexibility the 787 offers in the smaller variant with incrementally more seats than the 757-300 and vastly more flexibility...but for some reason US airlines just don't like flying widebodies on dedicated domestic routes anymore.

Back in the day (ie late 90s, early 2000s) I often flew the PMCO DC10 from IAH to LAX and SFO and LAX to HNL, not to mention the DL L1011 and later the 763 from FLL to ATL.

But if airlines continue this silly disease of widebodyitis and want to order a new 757 in sufficient numbers to make a case to Boeing, then the right move is the 753 fuselage in carbon fiber material mated to 787-style wings and updated systems. If there is minimal demand, but just enough to make it worthwhile to incrementally update the 753, then redo it as-is with new engines and the sky interior and call it a day.

I think in the end, it will also come down to Airbus actually producing the 321NEO or not before Boeing decides on a competitive response.

Kacee

The 788 and 789 have exactly the same cross-section (226 inches). The only way to increase seat width from 16.9 to 18.5 would be to (a) reduce the width of each aisle by 7.2 inches, or (b) measure seat width differently.

EWR764

In all likelihood, the 18.5" measurement is at the top of the seat at shoulder level, while the 'standard' measurement is armrest-to-armrest. 18.5" width at the armrests is realistic for an 8-abreast 787, not 9-across. To put things in perspective, 18.5" width between armrests at 9-abreast is about as wide a seat as is possible on a 777, and a 777 is 16" wider than a 787.

In other words, the math doesn't add up.

flyingnosh

What if UA were to decide to replace the TATL 757-200 aircraft with 787-8 aircraft? Suppose they were to reduce capacity to 757 levels by removing rows from the back, so that they could fly the aircraft with the same size crew as a 757. If labor cost were the same, how much more expensive would it be to fly a 787 instead of a 757?

andrewwm

Quite a bit. The 787-8 weighs about twice as much as the 757-200. Trip costs of course won't be 2x as much but even if 1.75x thats a lot of extra cost to make up if you aren't even regularly filling up a 757-200.

Kacee

Not to mention that purchase price of a new 788 is more than twice that of a 739. Reducing capacity to reduce operating costs does nothing to make up for the much higher acquisition costs. This is a complete non-starter. You're generating negative return on the asset.

milypan

What you're suggesting is a clean-sheet design. It's not as simple as saying, "Let's make the same fuselage as the 757, except just replace all the aluminum with carbon reinforced plastics." That's not how it works. You're talking about designing an entirely new fuselage, new wings, new engines...it's a whole new plane.

The 787-3 is a dog that won't hunt. It's just too big (wings, fuselage diameter, etc.) to be economical at that capacity.

andrewwm

Not to mention that the 787-8 is already looking like it will be the 767-200 of its type.

The 787-3 would have actually been heavier than the 787-8 (due to strengthened landing gear etc. to account for higher cycles) just limited in MTOW so as to have lower landing fees. The plane was essentially just a gimped 787-8 that would have only been for the Japanese market.

Baby versions of a line (737-600, A318, 767-200, 747-SP) usually have terrible economics and have proven over and over again to be the least popular version of their type.

fly18725

The 787-8 is actually selling better than the -9 and supposedly the lead time to get the -8 is now longer. AA is actually converting some -9s to -8s.

rmadisonwi

As all 787s are built on the same assembly line, I'm not sure why it would take longer to get one than the other if ordered today.

That said, according to Boeing's order page, the 787-8 has 467 orders, compared to the 787-9's order book of 466. So, the -8 is outselling the -9 as of today by a whopping ONE airplane. Considering that it was launched first, and was in service a few years before the -9, it shows how much more popular the -9 has been lately. For outstanding orders, the -9 has 452, vs only 235 for the -8. Clearly, the 9 is looking to be the more popular model going forward (the -10, for comparison, has 139 orders).