To Whom it May Concern,

  Greetings.

  I was disappointed to learn that the 757 will
no longer be constructed by Boeing.

  I was under the impression that this was one of
the most fuel efficient of all comercial airliners.

  Can anybody confirm this?

  Does anybody have any information regarding the
fuel efficiency (e.g., fuel used/passenger km) of
large airliners (e.g., 757s) vs. smaller airliners
(e.g. CRJs) vs. smallest (e.g. single engine two
passenger turboprop)?

  My gut tells me larger airliners would be more
efficient, similar to how a bus is more efficient
than a car.

  Posts and email welcome.

  Thanks in advance.

  regards,

  Lars Ewell

I just joined google groups, and found your message. As an airline
pilot who loves the 757, I am also sad to see the production of it "go
away". I have some experience, on the customer side, with the marketing
tactics of companies like Boeing. I have learned from years past that
they made this particular decision so as to not be manufacturing a
competitive acft with their new 787 Dreamliner. I agree with your
article's logic about efficiency vs size. Within a relatively large
range, the larger the jet the more efficiency one gets out of it.
Obviously, operational length of the flights would play a part...you
couldn't take a 747 on a 100 mile trip and make much money.  The key,
here, is that they are probably not willing to risk losing sales of the
new project to 757 loyalists. It's still about the neatest airliner out
there, in terms of sheer power and versatility.

bob luke

1. Boeing proposes a 727 replacement: take the 727, replace the wing,
   take engines off the back, put nice new engines on the wing, and
   plug the center hole. Insert fancy new electronic{*filter*}pit for fuel
   efficiency and to reduce required flight crew from 3 to 2.

2. British Airways presses for a larger plane, which gradually happens.
   New nose, new tail, etc.

3. Plane is launched and sells more or less well. Not a howling success.

4. BA announces, some years later, that they will be replacing all
   757's with A320-series aircraft, as the 757 is too big for their
   purposes.

I suspect that the '57 could be stretched quite a bit, but that the
market would rather have something wider (i.e. two aisles) for
capacity this size and larger. And this capacity and smaller tends to
be used for short hauls, so the 737 fills the bill. At any rate, no
one is beating down Boeing's door to buy 757's.

My impression was that the 787 was a notch larger; more a 767
replacement. And replacing a model after over two decades hardly seems
premature :).

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Similarly, airlines have found fairly conclusively that passengers
want more frequent flights so there's one closer to when they want
one, and they want a non-stop flight, not a flight on a larger plane
to a hub to wait for a connecting flight to their destination.

When time zones and landing slots reduce practical choices for when a
flight can take off and arrive, larger planes like 747s and the new
A380 make a lot more sense. But fuel efficiency is less often the only
driving factor fleet composition decisions.

Says me, anyway...