757/767-200/300

Does anyone else agree with me that Boeing/Airbus needs to make a new domestic trans-con plane fitting the 757-200/300, 767-200/300? Since I'm hearing the 757-200 & 767's will start being replaced in a few years to come.

I read that AA is going to do trans-cons on their new shiny A321's and Delta with their equally shiny 737-900's.

Fortunately the A321's for AA will only have like 140 seats. But the 321's don't have much range in comparison to 757/767's.

I'd hate to be stuck flying LAX-JFK/EWR in either a 321 or 739.

Just seems that Boeing's mind is stuck on trans-Atlantic with the 787 and the 737 Max and is neglecting an important traveling segment.
 

jtrain609

I'm a carnal, organic anagram.
How many flights per day are going from coast to coast? How much more likely is it to fly from, say, Seattle to Houston to Newark over a day? Or San Francisco to Denver to New York? Cutting the distance by flying to somewhere in the middle of the country, usually a hub, can eliminate the need for the range, and if you step up the frequency, the number of seats.

Heck, we could fly EWR-MCI-LAX no problem in the XRJ, and in fact Skywest is doing just that daily in a CRJ-900 (The MCI-LAX leg, that is, but with that, we do EWR-MCI). So there's your range, and unless you're shuttling from hub to hub, do you really need a large number of seats on many routes?
 

Rotor2Wing

Unapologetically American
I have heard rumors of Boeing making a Mini-Dreamliner for just this type of flying. Something about making the 787 shorter.
 

SurferLucas

Southern Gentleman
Atlanta - Seattle is 11 flights a day, 7 on Delta with mix of 757-200/300 and the 767-300 (Domestic and ER)...AirTran with the 737-700 3 times a day, and once a day on Alaska in the 737-800/900.

The thought of this route going to all 737's and maybe the occasional 767ER is painful...
 
How many flights per day are going from coast to coast? How much more likely is it to fly from, say, Seattle to Houston to Newark over a day? Or San Francisco to Denver to New York? Cutting the distance by flying to somewhere in the middle of the country, usually a hub, can eliminate the need for the range, and if you step up the frequency, the number of seats.

Heck, we could fly EWR-MCI-LAX no problem in the XRJ, and in fact Skywest is doing just that daily in a CRJ-900 (The MCI-LAX leg, that is, but with that, we do EWR-MCI). So there's your range, and unless you're shuttling from hub to hub, do you really need a large number of seats on many routes?
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. A 3-4 hour flight in an RJ???

Yikes.
 

JustinS

Well-Known Member
What would be the advantage of a large narrowbody in the 757 range of seating if the 737-900 and A321 carry almost the same number of passengers? It looks like the 737-900 averages about 170 seats when looking at different airlines. By looking at US Airways it looks like about 180 seats, and the 757-200 is about 180 seats. Are we suggesting something in size comparable to a 757-300 or 767-200 for transcon flights? I just find it would be odd if Boeing built a plane that competed with their own 737 line. It would be cool to see some 787s do transcon flights.
 
What would be the advantage of a large narrowbody in the 757 range of seating if the 737-900 and A321 carry almost the same number of passengers? It looks like the 737-900 averages about 170 seats when looking at different airlines. By looking at US Airways it looks like about 180 seats, and the 757-200 is about 180 seats. Are we suggesting something in size comparable to a 757-300 or 767-200 for transcon flights? I just find it would be odd if Boeing built a plane that competed with their own 737 line. It would be cool to see some 787s do transcon flights.
I'm looking at this from both a pilot's perspective and a passenger perspective. Pilots' perspective (or at least mine) the 737-INFINITY is ughhhh. Can we come up with something new, already.

Passenger perspective. Would you really want to be on a 737/321 trans-con?

Guess a 321 is okaaaaay. It's more comfortable than a 737. Guess I'm just bored with 1970's/80's jets.

But from a company perspective I see the profit benefit of making the A321 & 737-10,000X
 

JustinS

Well-Known Member
I'm looking at this from both a pilot's perspective and a passenger perspective. Pilots' perspective (or at least mine) the 737-INFINITY is ughhhh. Can we come up with something new, already.

Passenger perspective. Would you really want to be on a 737/321 trans-con?

Guess a 321 is okaaaaay. It's more comfortable than a 737. Guess I'm just bored with 1970's/80's jets.

But from a company perspective I see the profit benefit of making the A321 & 737-10,000X
That's probably the biggest factor unfortunately. I totally agree it would be nice to see something new.
 

ClearedToThe

Well-Known Member
The average passenger barely knows what airline they are flying on, let along what kind of plane. Passengers see no difference between a 737 and a 757/321/320, etc. All they see is 1 aisle and 3x3 seating.
 

skyw82

Well-Known Member
I think airlines don't want to flood the market with seats anymore. Why put a 767 with over 200 seats when you can put a a320 with 150 and charge more per seat. That's why the a 320 neo and 737 max are doing so well.
 

Cherokee_Cruiser

Well-Known Member
I only wish the Delta 767-3 had 2 cockpit jumpseats. Sucks to see 261 passengers and 1 cockpit j/s pushback with a pilot left at the gate. Yes, yes, commuting is a 'choice'! ;)
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
Maybe abandon the hub and spoke model. Make more through flights. I don't know how that doesn't make sense money wise.
 

Patrick

Well-Known Member
Maybe abandon the hub and spoke model. Make more through flights. I don't know how that doesn't make sense money wise.
I'm all for this, but let's be honest, if we're going to see more direct flights, they're going to be on smaller aircraft (the exception being major city pairs). No 76-anything's going between Wichita, KS and Rochester, NY.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
I'm all for this, but let's be honest, if we're going to see more direct flights, they're going to be on smaller aircraft (the exception being major city pairs). No 76-anything's going between Wichita, KS and Rochester, NY.
But why does anything go between those cities? I honestly don't know the traffic those two cities create, but to me it seems like there should be a stop in between.
 

SeanD

Well-Known Member
I think companies like Boeing and Airbus are more focused on incorporating new technology and more fuel efficient design tweaks to their current models. Creating a whole new design from scratch seems to have become an expensive hassle for them. The bottom line? It's all about the customers demand, making the quick sale and delivering the product on time.
 

Douglas

Old School KSUX
I could be off base, but I've never linked a bigger Boeing aircraft to being more comfortable or spacious but instead the individual airline original specifications.
No matter, I never want to do a trans-con.
Though it beats covered-wagon style.
 
Top