Why the Obvious Choice for a Boeing 757 Replacement Isn't So Obvious

https://www.jalopnik.com/1853299/what-will-replace-boeing-757/

by rntn • 1 year ago

16 13 1 year ago

The domestic passenger airline industry in the US is already in trouble. With the drop in travel thanks to the administration's antics and tariffs on foreign goods, expect serious turbulence.

rsyring3• 1 year ago

Since, as you might imagine, the planes themselves are an airline's biggest expenditure...

Is that true?

I'd have expected that, over the course of the life of a plane, the costs to fuel, maintain, or pay the humans associated with it's flights would be bigger than the initial purchase cost.

Edit: ChatGPT thinks fuel is the biggest expense at 2-3x the original purchase price over the life of the aircraft.

addaon• 1 year ago

ChatGPT thinks

What makes you say that?

os2warpman• 1 year ago

ChatGPT is incapable of thought and can only mash together strings of text and output grammatically correct-ish sentences that meet an arbitrary criteria for "sameness" to what it has fed on.

Like with all things that are complicated and have nuance, it is incapable of giving an answer that is useful.

Fuel expenses over the life of an aircraft are tricky because the life of an aircraft is defined by its number of cycles (take offs and landings) independent of the number of miles flown.

For short/medium haul aircraft like the A320neo, 48,000 cycles at 1,220km/cycle with 2.79kg of fuel used per km of flight, at $0.80 per kg for fuel means that the total spent on fuel during the life of the aircraft is just below the list price of the aircraft but slightly above what airlines actually pay for an A320neo.

For long haul aircraft like a 787-10 with the GEnx engines, 44,000 cycles at 10,240km/cycle with 6.12kg of fuel used per km of flight at $0.80 per kg for fuel means that the total spent of fuel during the life of the aircraft is over $2.26 billion, or roughly 8x the list price of the aircraft.

Neither 0.8x-1.25x nor 8x are "2-3x". Looking at financial reports, for no US airline does it even average out to 2-3x.

But those were fuel prices 3 years ago, today they're half that.

Tomorrow they might be double.

All of this ignores the fact that "the planes themselves are..." doesn't limit the dollar amount to the initial purchase cost.

It also ignores the fact that some aircraft are leased, and others are major capital expenditures so the total costs for the same aircraft at the same company can vary greatly. Airlines typically report the "cost" of their aircraft as CASM-ex, or cost per available seat mile excluding fuel so the "price" of an airplane over its lifetime is CASM-ex + fuel and fuel is currently around 25% of the CASM-ex of the three largest US airlines.

Every single aircraft type has different costs that can vary widely.

A useful non-bullshit response from an A"I" would start with "For what kind of aircraft?"

rsyring3• 1 year ago

A useful non-bullshit response from an A"I" would start with "For what kind of aircraft?"

FWIW, I gave ChatGPT the size of aircraft as discussed in the OP article. But I didn't grill it for details, just wanted a general idea if the article's statement was even close to accurate.

I was hoping someone would come along and bring more nuance and knowledge to the discussion. So, thanks. :)

rsyring3• 1 year ago

For the record, I was using "ChatGPT thinks" colloquially.

robocat• 1 year ago

So rent the A321 instead of buying them? The tariffs apply to goods not services.

quink• 1 year ago

The US population is about 4% of the worldwide population.

Anybody who thinks that the aviation industry does or doesn’t do anything significantly different because of something that touches 4% for 4 years is probably in the market for some Ilyushin 96’s.

ungreased0675• 1 year ago

Percentage seems to have little relevance here. How much profit could they get from a 757 replacement? Enough to make it worth it?

Ekaros• 1 year ago

If you can deliver one with reasonable spec that is range, price and fuel-efficiency you can sell a lot. It is size range where there is significant demand.

A321 planes mentioned have orders in thousands. And that is a lot for a plane. So well executed plane fulfilling design criterias certainly seem like reasonable mainstay.

actuallyalys• 1 year ago

I would like to know why Boeing didn’t have a replacement ready when the 757 stopped being produced. I realize commercial planes are not consumer goods, but 2004 still seems like a long time ago. Thus I imagine having a 757 replacement sooner was the plan, so what derailed it?

mariuolo• 1 year ago

I read somewhere that designing a new plane would be a financially challenging proposition, with a comparatively small return far down the road.

Plus, it would be a new type and airlines would end up with hybrid fleets, increasing logistics costs (spare parts stocks, retraining of mechanics, pilots who couldn't readily switch between new and old planes and probably more).

In short, not a compelling proposition for anyone involved.

ashoeafoot• 1 year ago

Obvious choice is to have a daughter company outside of the us that has airbus planes and flies the routes desired.

Why the Obvious Choice for a Boeing 757 Replacement Isn't So Obvious

Related Stories