Mgt view of 757 vs 737-900
#11
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
When they sold them side by side, the 757 was twice the price. Few airlines ever used the jet to its fullest. Most were used on 2-6 hour flights. A 900 Guppy does most of those flights for half the purchase price, and 20% less gas.
Airbus got the market covered better. The 321 is better than a 900.
The 757 is still my favorite airline. A new 321 might be second. In theory they should fly the same as a 320, but i liked it a lot more.
Airbus got the market covered better. The 321 is better than a 900.
The 757 is still my favorite airline. A new 321 might be second. In theory they should fly the same as a 320, but i liked it a lot more.
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: retired 767(dl)
Posts: 5,739
And how are you going to generate more revenue on an airplane that has the same number of seats as the 900 but is heavier and burns more fuel? You said it yourself it is the same fuselage, what are these better entertainment and overhead bin options that are available? Yes the 75 is better than the 73 in many aspects...except for that pesky operating cost. There is a reason the 737 survived and the 757 did not.
The hot rod comment was spot on as many pilots have an emotional view of the 757 and not a realistic based one.
The hot rod comment was spot on as many pilots have an emotional view of the 757 and not a realistic based one.
#13
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Narrow/Left Wide/Right
Posts: 3,655
People going on vacation are generally on a schedule. Missed tours, hotel rooms, reservations, etc. They don't want money they want the seat they paid for at the time they scheduled it. Someone said lost goodwill? Yeah I wouldn't expect to see those pax back.
Hopefully they were volunteers.
Hopefully they were volunteers.
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Which cockpit would you rather be in facing a line of weather, or a short and slick runway, or single engine? Hot rod? Spoken like a bean counter trying to justify a viewpoint.
#15
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Posts: 108
When they sold them side by side, the 757 was twice the price. Few airlines ever used the jet to its fullest. Most were used on 2-6 hour flights. A 900 Guppy does most of those flights for half the purchase price, and 20% less gas.
Airbus got the market covered better. The 321 is better than a 900.
The 757 is still my favorite airline. A new 321 might be second. In theory they should fly the same as a 320, but i liked it a lot more.
Airbus got the market covered better. The 321 is better than a 900.
The 757 is still my favorite airline. A new 321 might be second. In theory they should fly the same as a 320, but i liked it a lot more.
#17
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: Tom’s Whipping boy.
Posts: 1,182
If I recall the video, the exec said the -900 saves the company 20 million per year, vs the 757 same routes etc.
There are other differences for the passenger. the 57 goes higher sooner, better ride. As I pointed out, the F/C lav is larger, every overhead in F/C will accomodate a rollaboard.
It boards/ unloads faster.
With more modern engines the 57 would be close to the -900 fuel burn.
The reason Boeing pushed the 737 so hard is that is cheaper to build the fuselage with the new bonding method. If the line were not shut down, the 57 could be built the same way.
The BIG difference is the cost of acquisition due to lower interest rates when the -900 was rolled out.
As I pointed out, Delta bought 13 of them on the secondary market.
Ironically, the exec in the video said something about " if we are going to compete with Delta"..... blah blah blah
Remember, that 757 put us in a very competitive position over the Atlantic. The -900 could never do it. So, what will we use when the57 is gone?
Boeing has said they are willing to re-open the 757 line if the customers wanted it.
We should be at the front of the line.
There are other differences for the passenger. the 57 goes higher sooner, better ride. As I pointed out, the F/C lav is larger, every overhead in F/C will accomodate a rollaboard.
It boards/ unloads faster.
With more modern engines the 57 would be close to the -900 fuel burn.
The reason Boeing pushed the 737 so hard is that is cheaper to build the fuselage with the new bonding method. If the line were not shut down, the 57 could be built the same way.
The BIG difference is the cost of acquisition due to lower interest rates when the -900 was rolled out.
As I pointed out, Delta bought 13 of them on the secondary market.
Ironically, the exec in the video said something about " if we are going to compete with Delta"..... blah blah blah
Remember, that 757 put us in a very competitive position over the Atlantic. The -900 could never do it. So, what will we use when the57 is gone?
Boeing has said they are willing to re-open the 757 line if the customers wanted it.
We should be at the front of the line.
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: SFO Guppy CA
Posts: 1,112
The 737-900ER has been stretched beyond its usefulness. The 75 is not only a "hot rod", but it out performs the Guppy in just about all categories. It goes higher, flies faster (albeit not much), lands shorter, and has much better short field characteristics. The systems are also more automatic and better. The only statistic that the Guppy is better than the 75 (on paper) is operating cost. But what is not figured into those metrics because it's largely not quantifiable is the bad faith that we gain when we have to stop for fuel because we can't provide what we've advertised. Non stop flight to a destination, because Delta and American can do it (from the passenger standpoint). It looks like "amateur hour" from a passenger/customer standpoint.
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: Always Fly With Favorite Captain
Posts: 377
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post