RJMAZ wrote:heavymetal wrote:Polot is exactly correct here. The 757-300's lack of sales was a function of it's poor timing to market, not it's poor economics. Ask any of the carriers operating it - for the carriers that operate it, its one of, if not the, most profitable narrowbodies thanks to its great economics. I believe it would have outsold the 757-200 over the long run if given the opportunity, much like all of the other upgauge models. Unfortunately 9/11 sealed the 757 family's fate.
No, that is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. The 757-300 was a desperate last gasp attempt by Boeing to keep the 757 line going. Sales for the 757 came to a dead stop in 1994 with 12 orders and another 13 orders in 1995. The introduction of the A321 in 1994 is what caused that dead stop. The 737-900 didn't help either.
The 757-300 was a last attempt in 1996 to improve CASM as the A321 could easily match the CASM of the 757-200.
That is 5 years before September 11. The coffin lid was already on and that simply added the last nail.
I doubt a 757-300 style modern version would sell very well today. Unless it could sell 1000+ frames its a bad idea.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Those 12 orders in '94 and 13 in '95 were immediately followed by 59 in '96, 44 in '97, and 50 in '98. Certainly not because of the 753, since only 55 total of those were sold, 39 of which were in 2000 and 2001. So maybe its time to rethink the whole A321 caused an immediate dead stop in 757 sales forcing Boeing to respond with a stretched 753? I'm not sure looking at two years in the mid 90s tells the whole story. It is not like the A321 was a hugely popular aircraft at first. You could probably just as equally argue that the 757's poor sales in 94/95 was a final side effect of the early 90s recession that resulted in precarious financial positions for many US airlines (the 757's biggest customers), and the collapse of a couple including EA, a 757 customer that provided the market with a source of used 757s.