Good-bye 757

wrx

Senior
Sep 19, 2003
304
0
Boeing to shut 757 line
Aircraft maker will discontinue the production line by 2005, take pretax charge of $184M.
October 16, 2003: 6:39 PM EDT

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Boeing Co., the world's largest aircraft maker, said Thursday that it would shut down its 757 narrow-body jet line in Renton, Wash., in late 2004 after 22 years for lack of orders, and take a third-quarter pretax charge of $184 million.

The charge equates to 14 cents per share before taxes and covers costs that will be incurred through 2005. Analysts polled by First Call were expecting third-quarter earnings of 37 cents a share.

Boeing's Seattle-based jetliner unit delivered more than 1,000 of the mid-sized 757s since 1982, but airlines in recent years have instead bought the smaller and cheaper 737 model as well as jets from rival Airbus SAS.

Boeing (BA: Research, Estimates ) is also developing a larger jet, the proposed wide-body 7E7, which would seat 200 to 250 passengers, roughly matching the 757's capacity, but would fly farther with a more comfortable cabin environment.

Earlier Thursday long-time Boeing customer Continental Airlines said it would take delivery of five 757-300s on order but would convert orders for six more to 737-800s.

Boeing's Web site lists orders for only 18 of the 757s, including Continental's 11, and the jet maker has been delivering just one or two 757s per month this year.

Excluding jets inherited with its 1997 purchase of rival McDonnell Douglas, Boeing has not shut down a jet line since 1991, when it finished building a smattering of military versions of the venerable 707.

Prior to that Boeing's last closure was the 1984 shutdown of the 727 tri-jet.
 
757 will live for another 20 years, AA will use the bird until 2015. Most AA 757 are young and serve leisure routes, where new planes aren't such an issue.
 
It looks like Boeing purchased Douglas, then decided to use their blueprint for success!!! Douglas flopped because they refused to develop new planes. They ignored their customers and kept warming over their old tired models. Boeing's doing the exact same thing. Airbus is listening to their customers and has developed state-of-the-art aircraft that are reliable, customer and crew friendly, and easy on the bottom line. With the exception of the 777 which Boeing had to be dragged kicking and screaming to develop (they wanted to "stretch" the 767)! Boeing has kept producing planes which are mostly obsolete. Lets all hope Boeing comes to their senses and produces a successfull 7E7!
 
AAmech said:
Airbus is listening to their customers and has developed state-of-the-art aircraft that are reliable, customer and crew friendly, and easy on the bottom line.
How many 20 year old Airbus aircraft are in operation with passenger carriers today?

How many 30+ year old Boeing or McDonnell?

When Airbus can prove that they don't build disposable aircraft, I'll believe you.
 
You're both right.

For domestic flying I generally find the A-320 family more comfortable than the B-737s. It seems like there's just enough more room to make a difference in passenger comfort. Having said that, there is no question in my mind that the B-737 is a better plane. I hear too many bad stories from folks at NWA about their older A-320s - which were purchased in the late '80s, I believe. To hear them talk about it, they loved the plane for the first few years, now they just want to get rid of them. These are the same people who sing the praises of their 30-year-old DC-9s! If you want a plane to be around for 20 or 30 years, I don't belive the A-320 is it - you're much better off in the long run with the 737.
 
You're both right.

For domestic flying I generally find the A-320 family more comfortable than the B-737s. It seems like there's just enough more room to make a difference in passenger comfort. Having said that, there is no question in my mind that the B-737 is a better plane. I hear too many bad stories from folks at NWA about their older A-320s - which were purchased in the late '80s, I believe. To hear them talk about it, they loved the plane for the first few years, now they just want to get rid of them. These are the same people who sing the praises of their 30-year-old DC-9s! If you want a plane to be around for 20 or 30 years, I don't belive the A-320 is it - you're much better off in the long run with the 737.
 
There's no doubt Douglas made the toughest, longest lasting airframes. But its a stretch to think that a Boeing airframe is significantly better than an airbus. I don't doubt that A320's bought in the late 80's are not as nice as they once were. But there are PLENTY of 80's vintage 737-300,400,500 that are being dumped on the used market or parked in the desert right now. They do not age gracefully. Historically 737's require a LOT of maint to keep them flying when they get "Long in the Tooth"!
 
If you look inside the B737-800 and the A320 they're almost identical! I will not work on a scarebus. If it aint Boeing it aint going!
 
Wont work an airbus? Thats silly its a well built a/c. Our A300's have a great passenger layout, tons of galley space. Its extra wide and roomy. Best of all airbus planes fly level. That makes working the aisle easier. Boeing fly nose high, there is always and incline.
 
jimntx said:
Never worked on an Airbus a/c; however, I suspect there's a reason why I hear AA crews at MIA and JFK refer to it as the Scarebus!
Maybe so, but at my seniority I cannot touch an airbus line even working 17 on. Its more a joking name than anything like what we call Caracas, New York, or Porta Plata out side ear shot of passengers. Doesnt mean we hate those place's and would never go there.
 
Right on, Mikey!

I miss the A300 domestic, it's crew/pax friendly and still has the Princess P/C trips. I noticed the line-holder seniority sky-rocketed on MIA domestic after the R/A layovers came into effect.

I was drafted for A300 and it was one of the best things that happened to me. I didn't want to be qualified because the "scarebus" had left a bad taste in my mouth from being a gate agent (from the infamous "creeping" maintenance delays).

I have to say I experienced nearly 0 delays for the almost 6 months I flew the A300. The delays I experienced were minimal.

You have to remember that there are not that many A300s and there is definitely not a "spare". If one goes out-of-service, you usually have to wait for another one to arrive to replace it. Kinda like when we were slowly retiring the 727...probably like the F100 is going to be.

Example, MIA had 3 A300s that left in the 7pm bank (EWR, BOS, JFK). If one went OTS, the delay would automatically be 9:30pm (when 3 A300s arrived from SJU, SDQ, and maybe CCS). If JFK went OTS, they would "steal" EWR or BOS a/c to protect the 11pm JFK-LHR connections. I spent many an evening "baby-sitting" AA998 and AA882. There are very few flight numbers burned into my brain and those are 2 of them.

On the 757 line being retired...can't say I'm too upset as an F/A. Can't stand the thing, though the TWA 757s are FAR SUPERIOR to AA's. Unfortunately, most are going back to the lessors. They have the lavs at 3 L/R which is crew and pax friendly. That also breaks the cabin up which is a MAJOR psychological difference. I won't say the 2 crew nicknames for the 757 here. However, the 757 has an amazing maintenance dependability, which will be sad to lose.

The 757 is a nightmare on a transcon...I think it's OK for 3-4 hrs but paxs get really tweaky after 4hrs...now take it back to 166 Y seats...EEK!

I think it is more comfortable to fly Y class on a 767 than F class on a 757.

I'm hoping we eventually get the 7E7...sounds like it may be nearly as fuel-efficient as the 757 but dual-aisle! A bit worried about Boeing's assembly strategy...time will tell I guess.

Geez, I'm an airline geek! LOL!

Coop
 
Mikey,

IIRC, the A300 is like the 757 in "chop". The front may be fine but you are thrown to "bejesus" in the AFT galley. The difference is the OHB are MUCH higher on the A300 :lol:

I'll check my coffee burn scars and get back to you! :D

Coop
 
The Airbus is more susceptible to turbulence because of the composites used in its construction; they are less flexible and therefore act to amplify the effects of turbulence. What a Boeing aircraft might feel as light chop/turbulence an Airbus will likely experience light-moderate or even moderate.

Peace!
 
WXGuesser said:
The Airbus is more susceptible to turbulence because of the composites used in its construction; they are less flexible and therefore act to amplify the effects of turbulence. What a Boeing aircraft might feel as light chop/turbulence an Airbus will likely experience light-moderate or even moderate.

Peace!
So I guess the 7E7 is going to be a bumpy ride. They plan on making it mostly out of composites to save on weight and increase strength.