The A321 XLR is the best choice on paper. More space, longer legroom. But I would be surprised if Icelandair change to Airbus. Boeing will make discounts to sell more Max. It will be interesting to see it soon...
@@rkan2 it can't be the only argument. But in this case, the problem to switch to Airbus would be the backlog. Boeing has less orders to deliver. And it can be a strong argument. Even if the A321 XLR would be a perfect match.
The A321xlr would be be a good option but Icelandair is an all Boeing operator and if the B737 MAX is 85% of their operations and introducing the A321xlr would be expensive for a small airline. I wouldn't be surprise that Boeing might do a deal with the B787-8 which will give them greater freight capacity excluding the bulk freight carried by Icelandair cargo, compared to the B757's, B737 MAX's and the A321xlr plus the B737 MAX cockpit layout is similar to the B787 so it wouldn't expensive in pilot rating conversion.
B787 and 737 are two completely different typeratings. That means, a typerating on the Airbus 320 family contra rating on the B737 are the same price vice. But sometimes, when you buy new aircrafts, you can make a deal, to get an offer of included typeratings.
@@user-de4cq6uk6l No that is not an option for them. They can't wait that long on replacements. Boeing hasn't even settled on a design or launched the program. If it ever happens it's upwards of 7-10 years before delivery.
@@sebastianfloyd372 Different segment and not competitors. The 757-300 is almost always used by DL/UA on high demand domestic short to medium haul routes. Much less range the XLR and never designed at as 757-300 replacement. Too few of them anyway to worry about a replacement.
@@ZRHTrainspotter I’m not sure if A322neo is good idea because it’ll likely end up like the Max 10 which is compromised and overstretched. Besides, only 55 757-300’s were made so the market is poor and can only support 1 player replacement but bring another it will cause problems for both
For an Airline this size it does not make sense to introduce a subfleet from another manufacturer for only a small number of destinations. The MAX can cover most routes, the 767s can still fly longer and cover LAX ans SFO for example. Later on they can try to get some second hand 787-8 to replace the 767. Not an ideal replacement but it takes too long until a 797 comes.
On the surface, the A321LR is the obvious choice. Narrowbody with longer range than the 737 MAX. However, the reason why Icelandair has stayed with Boeing is the reality that going to Airbus would be very costly, since having both aircraft types in their fleet increases their costs exponentially. 85% of Icelandair routes can be flown with the 737 MAX. The other 15% of their routes can be flown with the 767-300ER. The upside of using the 767 on routes like Seattle is that the capability of carrying cargo between west coast USA and Iceland is very attractive and because the airplane could really support 140-150 pax in the winter, the rest of the payload capability could be taken up by freight. Since the 767s have about another 7-10 years of life left to them, this would allow them the ability to see if a 767 replacement is a viable option OR if a variant of the 737 MAX could be created to carry the extra fuel needed to fly the SEA-KEF route year round. It is only westbound that it would be needed… It would not be the first time Boeing has created a variant for a specific customer… The other alternative for Icelandair would be a combo deal to get 787-8s cheap. That would solve a couple of issues and give Icelandair a significant long haul boost.
The one topic that wasn’t touched in the video was freight. The 321XLR might sound fantastic but doesn’t perform well on cargo. I wouldn’t be surprised if Boeing would come up with something like a 787Combi, similar to what KLM had with their 747s
@@steinwaldmadchen in that case, please accept my apologies. I thought the 752 had a larger capacity. Nonetheless, the idea of a 787 combi actually sounds wicked 😄
@@7772Z9 Modern widebodies have plenty of payload, that Combi is no longer necessary. In fact, A330 almost carry as much as a 744 pax can take, while 77W and 351 easily doubles. New safety requirements also prevent combi from making profits, but I forgot what exactly is.
Iceland air 757s would be a lot nicer for passengers on long routes if they didn't cram the seats together as much as they do. Sitting 8 hours in their seat arrangement was miserable. It's not the aircraft they pick, it the spacing between seat rows that determines comfort more than anything else. I had such a bad experience I won't fly Iceland air again.
indeed it depends on airline. so air bus fans they aren't more specious like any other mid haul plane. depends on ailine and configuration and or modifications!!!!
you are so correct Francois it how they configure the seats and they try and cram in as many seats as close as possible to load the plane to max capacity ,it goes on mainly on economy zones of an aircraft , it must be horrible to be seated for 8 bloddy hours cramped in with the tight seat arrangement with little or no comfort
@@jouniairplanevideos I agree, however, the A320's series is 7" wider than the MAX series so each seat gets an additional inch in width. I"m sure if Icelandair could use those 7" to make money, they would.....
It seems that has become the norm for most airlines. How many cattle can we stuff in our planes to maximize profit. Passengers won't mind, it's only for a couple of hours.
This is a good cause for Boeing to develop the 797 as a 757 replacement. Airbus at the moment is completely in control of this segment and longer 737s just won't be enough anymore.
Boeing is facing big financial difficulties to develop a new plane. The 797 or something like that would be a good move. But I suspect that Boeing will come with a new version of the 787-3or a revamped 767. The MAX fiasco, repetitive the quality issues with the 787 and the future 777X is consuming too much resources until 2025. At least....
The McDonnell-Douglas engineers who helped with the 757 are no longer around, so a 797 to replace the 757 would require engineers with the same background.
I think the 787 would be the best replacement for both their 757/767's , after all Boeing originally said the Dreamliner was supposed to replace both the 757 & 767 and was to be just as efficient on short haul as long haul. Maybe Boeing could rethink the 787-3 👌
The 787-3 is nothing but a 787-8 with some modifications for short haul flights, so that wouldn’t be the solution as it’s exactly the size as the 787-8
@@spongebubatz The 787-3 could seat 250-270 and go 5000 Nautical miles, whereas the 787-8 can seat a minimum of 218 and a max of 242 in 2 a class configuration and go 7355 Nautical Miles. The Boeing 757-200 in 2 class configuration could seat 200-228 and go 3915nm and the 757-300 could seat 243-280 and go 3400nm. So the 787-3 was pretty close the the 753 but better in some ways like Payload, range and the fact she's a widebody, so more spacious etc... and the 787-8 is similar to a 753 passenger number wise, but much better range. I think a 787-3 would be the perfect solution to replace the 757 👍
@@guitarplayerforu if only that was right! The 787-3 would’ve had the same fuselage as the 787-8! It’s only difference were different wings and some modifications for shorter flights! It has the exact same fuselage after all, so your numbers are off. It is the complete opposite to the 757: The 757 is your long low demand routes, the 787-3 for short high demand routes. If the 787-3 was the solution the 787-8 would’ve sold much better than it already does, it’s the same fuselage, remember? Also, if your numbers were right I can’t really follow what you’re trying to say. The 787-8 already has a higher capacity than the 757-200 and -300, so the 787-3 with, according to you, more capacity, is the solution. Sorry, but I don’t get it. By the way, they have the exact same fuselage, just in case this didn’t become clear!
@@spongebubatz I'm sorry, I stand corrected, it was actually 290-330 that the 787-3 was intended to seat, so like the smaller 767-200. The thing with the 787 is she's incredibly fuel efficient, even when not full, so a 787-3 probably would have still worked out cheaper to run than 757's, even if at times they didn't operate at full capacity.
I think any 787 version is just too much capacity for this airline on their core routes. Their smartest move would be to ditch their Max fleet and commit to the XLR. All but tailor made for this airline, as they could reach any US or European city out of Keflavik.
Icelandair is an all Boeing operator so their whole operations are geared around Boeing engineering, spares, flight/cabin crew training and logistics. Icelandair is not not a big airlines, so introducing the A321xlr would be expensive.
It's really only commonality. The A321neo family is a much better 757 replacement than the 737 MAX 10 but would introduce additional fleet complexity. The A321neo does, however, have the advantage that it only takes 7 days training for an A321neo pilot to fly the A330neo, which would make a good replacement for their 767s and 757-300s
Boeing should have created an upgraded re-engined 757, called the 757 Max instead of making the 737 Max in my opinion, the 757 could be used on both short and med haul routes.
The 757 is a BEAUTIFUL jet, a great example of industrial design. However, as a business tool, it failed. The 757 was intended (i) to supercede the 727 as a marketable product in the Boeing portfolio and (ii) to replace the existing specimen of the type in airline service. Of the 727, 1832 had been delivered, but the 757 was only sold 1050 times. In terms of orders received, Boeing had two good (but not outstanding) years in 1988/89, but thereafter the interest of the airlines faded away. When in 2004 Boeing gave up and ultimately scrapped the manufacturing basis, there had been a reason for it. And this reason was that the 757 had been beaten in the marketplace. Over its last years it had become a dud. The newly introduced and much more sophisticated A320 / A321 prevailed (and, to tell the complete story, the ugly but cheaper little half sister in the Boeing portfolio killed the rest).
@@kermecke The A321 still doesn't come close in terms of performance or payload to the B757. A lot of airlines who operate or operated the 757 wanted Boeing to build a true replacement for her.
@@helwatywahab5236 best narrow body. Boeing could have upgraded the 757 family and it would be the top of the narrow body class. 757-200 still flies farther than the A321XLR.
The west coast US routes are the difficult one as not only are they long I suspect they carry a lot of cargo as well (frozen fish mostly). The best short-term answer might be the 767 but Boeing hasn't sold a new passenger 767 in years so it would require them to take that back into production. The 787 might be another possibility but since the 787-3 was never built it might be too large. I don't see them going Airbus though for crew training reasons so I think it comes down to some mix of 737-MAX plus 767 or 787 aircraft. One argument for the 767 is that Icelandair has two dedicated cargo 757s in their fleet also and which only the 767 currently has a cargo version that could replace them, there is no all-cargo version of any of the other aircraft discussed in this video.
A321XLR would be more than sufficient to replace 752, in fact slighly better, if it performs as spec. The problem is actually fleet commonality. Had Icelandair start new they could have followed WOW and PLAY, having a fleet centered at A321NEO variants.
@@steinwaldmadchen What about cargo operations? There is no cargo version of the XLR so no way to complete fleet commonality. As it is the airline will need to keep either their 757s or 767s for cargo operations which means bringing in the XLR for long routes silly. Icelandair also has significant charter operations that may operate flights even longer than KEF-SFO and also owns Cape Verde Airlines with its own fleet of 757s and which sometimes they share aircraft with sos whatever is chosen likely needs to work for them as well. There are no easy answers unfortunately unless they give up serving the west coast of the US.
@@solracer66 Modern widebodies have plenty of payloads. Say, A330 has 45t, more than enough for 200ish passengers plus cargo payload comparable to a 757F. 787 has even higher max payload. A321P2F may or may not replace 757F, I've no ideas how far they fly the freighters. Otherwise A321XLR has higher payload range than 757 on spec. If it performs as expected it'd have no issues replacing 757. For a fleet heavy centered around 752, it’s probably the closest 1-to-1 replacement. Other alternatives require significant network rework.
@@steinwaldmadchen The Airbus A321PF freighter can carry only 28 metric tons a distance of 3800 km vs the 757 which can carry nearly 40 metric tons a distance of 5834 km so it is hardly a 757 replacement in either range or carrying capacity, especially with Seattle being 5812 km away. The A330 would be a better comparison with the 757 but you would still have the flight crew commonality issue. One nice thing about the 757/757F/767 fleet they have now is that they can mix the crews which they can't do with A321/A330 without going through much more extensive pilot training and I don't think they would like to have to have crews that can only fly two of their aircraft (the freighters).
A slightly larger aircraft is not the end of the world, as long as it has better economics. Not to mention they have 753 and 767 as well, which NMA would be the closest replacement. They can mix and match between the MAX and the NMA if the demand is weak.
I flew on Icelandair B757s from London to Boston in 2004. It is two local flights joined together to make a transatlantic trip. Tiny seats, rubber chicken meal, limited entertainment, but very cheap. You get what you pay for. A321XLR would be ideal for Icelandair's longer routes. I wish they would add extra destinations like Palm Springs.
The A321 XLR suits the “middle of the market” range and would suit Icelandair, but they are a full Boeing operator. Possibly a 787-8 but it’s not very practical for what Icelandair do. If Boeing EVER make that 797 it would do Icelandair. They could operate the 787 Max 10 though. I’m still onboard (quite literally! 😂) with the idea of re-enginning the 757.
Those are much bigger than the 757's, and have bigger engines so they guzzle more kerosene. I have reasonable doubt to believe that the A330-800 will be the replacement.
Actually the smallest A330's (200 / 800) start at 240 passengers and are widebody (2 rows rather than the single on the A321's). They're really B767 replacements, although by that capacity the smallest B787 enters the field.
I am so exited to be flying those Icelandair 757! my company just received 2 of them converted to cargo. They look such a nice livery on Amerijet Livery. will receive 4 more in coming months.
I should use the 787-8 for the 757-200 with more leg space!. Some 757-200 flights could fit the 737-MAX planes. For the 767 should I use the 787-9 and or -10. one type for longhaul. Also very usefull for EU flights. Example AirEuropa mad-ams flights 787-8/-9. Or svo-ams by aeroflot 777-300ER. edit later on: The787-8 could fit 248 seats. With (slightly) more comfy seats and more pitch they could fit 200 seats. Ideal, because the MAX9 could fit 220 seats at 28 inch pitch. So 180/200 at 30 inch pitch or more. If capacity drops to much the could sent the MAX. Better fleet (change) capabillity and more technical common. same cockpit same aerodynamics like chevrons and apu. Same manufacture/ philosophy.
@@williamerazo3921 i think that could be compensated due the more fuel efficient engines. some less fuel is needed for those flights. Also all of those airports could fit the dreamliner. So were are you talking about?
@@jouniairplanevideos Trip cost of 788 is actually similar to 763. It's seat cost that 787 significantly outperform previous aircraft, still the trip cost gap is too big compared to 757.
@@jouniairplanevideos Compare that with an A321XLR, which easily slash seat/trip cost by 30% from 757 (according to Arkia, the launch customer of LR), or MAX. Plus you don’t risk flying empty with these frames.
787-8 will be their best bet. Lower pilot training fees, more capacity than the 321s and possibly new opportunities both in onboard service and destination's
@@johnswanson2600 767 is discontinued as a passenger aircraft, and Boeing is unwilling to reopen even at the request of US3. They could get some 2nd hand late-built 767s, but likely they can't go beyond 2030s.
I’ve flown on United’s 737 MAX9 from ORD to FAI in First Class, which wasn’t bad. The return trip was on the same bird from ANC to ORD in Premium Economy at ~6.5 hours average each way. KEF to SEA is 1.5 hours longer. I agree with what someone else said: layout is key.
A couple of Edmonton fishmonger stores in Edmonton depend on daily, fresh shipments of fish from Iceland. The freshly caught fish is packed in ice practically straight off the fishing boat. In the past, this would have been impossible but this level of airfreight was unheard of 15 years ago. It also means we get affordable direct airline flights to Iceland or flights to Europe involving Iceland as a stopover hub.
They can choose to go all Boeing, 737 & 767, they can choose to go all Airbus, A320 NEO, A321 NEO and A 321 NEO XLR or a combination of both Boeing and Airbus. An all Airbus fleet would have the advantage of commonality for pilots, but would require retraining the current 737 flight crews and ground maintenance crews. Staying with Boeing would eliminate the need to retrain current 737 crews although they will need to retrain their 757 crews no matter which plane they chose to replace the 757, other than the 767. In the end, it will be a question of which manufacturer offers the best deal.
Come on boeing, your 767 line is still open. Reopen the passenger line and offer new build 767-300s with a buyback agreement once the 797 is flying. You might have a few extra carriers jump at this. Im all for the A321xlrv success but many pond hopping routes require something alittle bigger but not as big as the A330 or 787. Only time will tell.
787-8 could fit 248 seats. With (slightly) more comfy seats and more pitch they could fit 200 seats. Ideal, because the MAX9 could fit 220 seats at 28 inch pitch. So 180/200 at 30 inch pitch or more. If capacity drops to much the could sent the MAX. Better fleet (change) capabillity and more technical common. same cockpit same aerodynamics like chevrons and apu. Same manufacture/ philosophy.
I hope they do because Boeing doesn't have many narrow body long range aircrafts except the Max series of the 737. Airbus is the only one that can offer a more fuel efficient 757 replacement to Icelandair.
Maybe not because if we check their fleet, it’s an all-Boeing fleet for jet powered aircrafts. Only one Airbus ever entered service with Icelandair and it’s only for a year. Not totally ruling out Airbus aircraft, they also need to find a replacement for the 767s that they have very soon as they are retiring 2 of their 767s from passenger use to be converted to freighters. I think they might opt for the 787 family as replacement for both their 757s and 767s.
If not the A321XLR or NEO, then what about the 737 MAX-10? It's an obvious win for fleet commonality. How does that stack up for performance though? Assuming Boeing can get it certified!
Why Not retrofit the B757, with updated engines and the cockit with updated tecnologies??? They are puting on a fire all B757's fleet to acquire A321XLR, if B757 works well why not retrofit and updated???
@@gabrielb9010 There's no proper 757 replacement rn.The MAX 10 has whack performance while the A321neo doesn't have hot temperature short field performance the 757 has
Too bad Boeing did not come up with a replacement for the 757. So many airlines are looking to replacing their aging fleet now. The 737 MAX? I will let airlines work out the kinks at least for the next few years before I feel comfortable flying in one.
@@barrel6468 My thoughts exactly 👌. The 737's airframe originates from the 707, so is a lot older than the much more modern 757 airframe which is a similar age to the A320 family. They could have borrowed the swept wing, engines, avionics and interior from the 787 and called her the 757-800 and 757-900 and that would have future proofed the 757 👍
@@barrel6468 The fateful decision to "max" the 737 was made in 2011, when the 757 production line in the Renton factory had already been scrapped for seven years. And the 757 production line had been scrapped after the beautiful but economically not viable type had already been squeezed out of the market. That was back in the 1990s. I always scratch my head when I notice how many people (like you, but not to insult you) fall into nostalgic sentiment regarding the 757 and phantasize about a missed (ficticious) re-engine program. The 757 and 767 were sister projects in the 1970s, and on this one occasion Boeing succeeded to coordinate two divisions in a way that both types got a nearly identical flight deck (what was sadly appreciated by the 9/11 planners). But cockpit technology advanced rapidly and after a few years the 767 instruments were modernized. At this time the 757 market performance had already been so poor that Boeing withheld the upgrade from that product line.
@@kermecke Don’t get me wrong, I understand the reason they didn’t improve the 757 and it makes perfect sense. Although with the 787 lines in Everett shut down now and the new market for an aircraft similar to the 757, who knows?
Is it really a question ? As to which aircraft can be a direct replacement to the B752, there is not currently an aircraft that matches the B752 or B753 but the nearest match on paper is the A321 XLR, yes ? It has already been stated the the MAX does not have the range to replace. All in all this is a monumental error by Boeing to drop an aircraft from it’s range rather than update it when nothing available replaces it
The problem is that Icelandair Cargo has two dedicated 757 freighters and there is no freighter version of the XLR so that makes the 767 a better choice because it comes in both passenger and freighter versions.
@@jouniairplanevideos If you’re going to tell me the 737 family has more customer comfort than the 321 family, you are living in fantasy land. The 737-100 was introduced in 1967 and the inside cabin width was 11ft 5in. The “new” 737max’s is 11ft 7in. It’s an old and tired airframe that Boeing has simply, down through the years, lengthened and installed larger more fuel efficient engines. No significant passenger room comfort has evolved in 50 years.
@@grriceman782 I totally agree, for me, as a German, it's not attractive to fly with Iceland Air since we have many direct flight so the US and so Iceland Air should get me with their planes. Sorry,but this won't happen, I don't want to fly the 737 on long haul, a plane that never was constructed to fly on long haul.
@@grriceman782 those 737 flies standard with 3- inch. air bus on the other hand has 28 inch due ther new "comfort" airspace cabin. it depends on the airlines configuration and or modification. Also the NG seat are more comfy than its PG sisters.
I am quite sure that, if the A321(X)LR wuold have been a thing back when Icelandair ordered the 737MAX, they would have gone for it and switched to Airbus. At this point the cost of switching operations to the 737 or A320 would have been the same. But know that they decided to go for the MAX they kind of have to stick with it, because they invested heavily in the Type (Icelandair was one of the few Airlines that had MAX simulators before the grounding as they had to retrain all their crews.) And in the end they are too small to operate 2 types that are virtualy the same
@@steinwaldmadchen While ICE invested heavily in the MAX, it could have used the grounding to cancel the contracts and claim damages. In fact they only reduced the MAX order by four units. They have (again) missed the chance. I agree with many other commentators that splitting up a small fleet is a bad path. To maxim .. - to optimize future profitability it has to be "all or nothing". ICE could get rid of the MAX by involving a lessor, sell and lease back the planes for 4-5 years and in the meantime replace the remaining 757s with A321s.
Nothing can replace the Boeing 757. But if the real world capabilty of the XLR lives up to the hype, it would be the sensible choice. Boeing better come up with a ridiculously good aircraft if they want to stand a chance of winning back some of the XLR's market share. A 757 with 787 tech would be a worthy successor, but I highly doubt they will go ahead with it.
Honestly? More Max 9 and soon, MAX-10 (+ 1-2 787) variants for Icelandair, that is the answer. Why should they change the type rating for A321 when they fly with Boeing from decades...?
They’re one of the few airlines which push 757 to the limits, flying passengers and cargo far. As stated in the video, MAX8 is already struggling on their longest routes, -9 and -10 would perform even worst. Not even comparable to a standard A321NEO. 787 on the other hand is too big. It can replace 753 and 763, but not the majority of 752.
@@steinwaldmadchen I was saying that. The 787 would replace the 753 and 763. But let me tell you that ALL the MAX variants have more range than the regular A321neo, so I think range wise it is comparable to the NEO. The MAX may not be the perfect replacement option though, and in that case I do feel it may be the A321LR/XLR.
We say small planes, but consider that the golden ‘jet set’ age happened on 707s that were essentially using the same fuselage that we’d find on the 737, and that is looked back on as the era where flying was a more luxurious experience (on average) overall. Cabin layout is more important than being a wide body. A densely configured 777 can be less comfortable then the all-business class A318’s British Airways was using for transatlantic flights between London City and New York. Just because it’s a narrow body doesn’t mean it has to be configured like a low cost carrier with maximum seat density.
Maybe Iceland Air will choose the A321LR or XLR but I don't know maybe they might choose the MAX 10. The LR or XLR though would be better for the airline route wise but the MAX 10 would be better for fleet commonality. But as the 737 MAX aircraft that Iceland Air have can do 85% of their network I think that they need something with more range, they could pick the 787-8, as that has loads of range and could also replace their 767s too.
@@sebastianfloyd372 The -300 is almost in it's own category. Icelandair only has an extremely small fleet of those plus they lack range so they could just get more of a smaller option that would replace the rest of the 757 fleet
The A321 XLR certainly would make sense if they don’t mind operating Airbus and Boeing. If they wanted to stick with boeing I’m surprised nobody mentioned the MAX 10? Seems logical to me.
The A321 is just to small an aircraft for a flight of that length. The 767 would give the passenger the room and comfort the passenger would expect on a flight of that length.
Dude…this airline flies 757s and 737 Max, both single aisle aircraft, with flight times of 5+ hours. How would the A321 be such a radical change? The question of passenger comfort on long flights is dictated primarily by two AIRLINE decisions: seat width and pitch. That decision can go wrong just as easily on a 767 as it can on an A321.
The Lr or Xlr of Airbus Range quit really good....But in payload and performance cant much for the Migthy 757..i dont know why boeing did not upgrade this type??rather the 737 max they upgrade but have some techinical issues till know...
Icelandair has been historically an all Boeing fleet but I think they should use the A321XLR on those long routes because the B797 isn't coming out any time soon
Either A321xlr or 787-8’s or both maybe some destinations could have enough demand for a 787-8 but others not so those destinations should be used by an A321XLR
Or, they can stick to the 737 MAX and make a joint venture with an airline in the US to fly those longer routes with their metal. That’s what Brazilian GOL does with American Airlines.
Only one choice. A320! Boeing again have sat back and never built a replacement for either 757 or 767 or 737 It's a crying shame that so much forward business has been lost by doing nothing.
@@umi3017 If they could do that easily, they would have definitely done so by now. Considering the 737 MAX 10 is already pushing the limits of the 737 airframe, I doubt it is possible without major structural changes
I just flew in an Icelandair 737 Max-8, it didn’t feel anywhere near as modern as an Airbus A321 NEO and the seats were horribly uncomfortable. Quite unsuitable for more than a few hours of travel
The A321 XLR is the best choice on paper. More space, longer legroom. But I would be surprised if Icelandair change to Airbus. Boeing will make discounts to sell more Max. It will be interesting to see it soon...
This problem for Icelandair, Boeing does not have an A321xlr equivalent. I do agree it will be interesting to see what will happen.
The other problem is the long wait for the XLR, as they have 450 orders to fill first before any new ones.
Yeah, Icelandair has always been a Boeing airline...
@@rkan2 Jet2 used to be a Boeing airline as well......
@@rkan2 it can't be the only argument. But in this case, the problem to switch to Airbus would be the backlog. Boeing has less orders to deliver. And it can be a strong argument. Even if the A321 XLR would be a perfect match.
The A321xlr would be be a good option but Icelandair is an all Boeing operator and if the B737 MAX is 85% of their operations and introducing the A321xlr would be expensive for a small airline. I wouldn't be surprise that Boeing might do a deal with the B787-8 which will give them greater freight capacity excluding the bulk freight carried by Icelandair cargo, compared to the B757's, B737 MAX's and the A321xlr plus the B737 MAX cockpit layout is similar to the B787 so it wouldn't expensive in pilot rating conversion.
B787 and 737 are two completely different typeratings. That means, a typerating on the Airbus 320 family contra rating on the B737 are the same price vice. But sometimes, when you buy new aircrafts, you can make a deal, to get an offer of included typeratings.
Or they could be the launch operator of the “797” whenever that happens, as it is said to be the successor to the 757
@@user-de4cq6uk6l No that is not an option for them. They can't wait that long on replacements. Boeing hasn't even settled on a design or launched the program. If it ever happens it's upwards of 7-10 years before delivery.
@@johniii8147 the 757-300 is longer than the A321XLR so the A321XLR won’t be a replacement for the 757-300
@@sebastianfloyd372 Different segment and not competitors. The 757-300 is almost always used by DL/UA on high demand domestic short to medium haul routes. Much less range the XLR and never designed at as 757-300 replacement. Too few of them anyway to worry about a replacement.
My first transatlantic flight was on Icelandair in 1988, when they were flying DC-8s. I suppose it's a little late to go back to those...
My first transatlantic flight was in 1969. On Lofleider, CL44. The precursor to Icelandair
Similar experience on my first flight in 1969 on a Trans-Canada flight on a DC-8. The DC8 was a great plane in it’s day but the name was not PC hehehe
Your presentation is highly interesting to watch. Thank you very much and take care
The A321XLR neo would be the perfect thing.
I totally agree. A beautiful aircraft indeed too.
I love the A321neo aswell but having the fleet of MAXs would complicate things
Not for the -300. There’s no real suitable replacement without compromise
@@filledwithvariousknowledge1065 Airbus seems to have interest to develop an A322neo, a stretch (maybe) of the A321neo and it will have XLR as well
@@ZRHTrainspotter I’m not sure if A322neo is good idea because it’ll likely end up like the Max 10 which is compromised and overstretched. Besides, only 55 757-300’s were made so the market is poor and can only support 1 player replacement but bring another it will cause problems for both
I wanna see the Icelandair 🇮🇸 implement those Airbus A321XLRs. Let main chairman of that prestigious airline know this. Thanks 🙏, Simple Flying!
For an Airline this size it does not make sense to introduce a subfleet from another manufacturer for only a small number of destinations. The MAX can cover most routes, the 767s can still fly longer and cover LAX ans SFO for example. Later on they can try to get some second hand 787-8 to replace the 767. Not an ideal replacement but it takes too long until a 797 comes.
@Sebastian Floyd whats your problem?
A330 Neo?
On the surface, the A321LR is the obvious choice. Narrowbody with longer range than the 737 MAX. However, the reason why Icelandair has stayed with Boeing is the reality that going to Airbus would be very costly, since having both aircraft types in their fleet increases their costs exponentially.
85% of Icelandair routes can be flown with the 737 MAX. The other 15% of their routes can be flown with the 767-300ER. The upside of using the 767 on routes like Seattle is that the capability of carrying cargo between west coast USA and Iceland is very attractive and because the airplane could really support 140-150 pax in the winter, the rest of the payload capability could be taken up by freight.
Since the 767s have about another 7-10 years of life left to them, this would allow them the ability to see if a 767 replacement is a viable option OR if a variant of the 737 MAX could be created to carry the extra fuel needed to fly the SEA-KEF route year round. It is only westbound that it would be needed… It would not be the first time Boeing has created a variant for a specific customer…
The other alternative for Icelandair would be a combo deal to get 787-8s cheap. That would solve a couple of issues and give Icelandair a significant long haul boost.
737 Max, buy one, get one free
i dont like the idea of throwing a narrow-body on a 10 hour flight.
What about the 767s? Are those going to stick around? I’ll be flying with them in 5 days
The one topic that wasn’t touched in the video was freight. The 321XLR might sound fantastic but doesn’t perform well on cargo. I wouldn’t be surprised if Boeing would come up with something like a 787Combi, similar to what KLM had with their 747s
On paper XLR has higher payload range than 757, actually. In real world? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@steinwaldmadchen in that case, please accept my apologies. I thought the 752 had a larger capacity. Nonetheless, the idea of a 787 combi actually sounds wicked 😄
@@7772Z9 Modern widebodies have plenty of payload, that Combi is no longer necessary. In fact, A330 almost carry as much as a 744 pax can take, while 77W and 351 easily doubles.
New safety requirements also prevent combi from making profits, but I forgot what exactly is.
@@7772Z9 All combi offerings so far failed in the market.
The 757-200s are really nice.
Iceland air 757s would be a lot nicer for passengers on long routes if they didn't cram the seats together as much as they do. Sitting 8 hours in their seat arrangement was miserable. It's not the aircraft they pick, it the spacing between seat rows that determines comfort more than anything else. I had such a bad experience I won't fly Iceland air again.
indeed it depends on airline. so air bus fans they aren't more specious like any other mid haul plane. depends on ailine and configuration and or modifications!!!!
you are so correct Francois it how they configure the seats and they try and cram in as many seats as close as possible to load the plane to max capacity ,it goes on mainly on economy zones of an aircraft , it must be horrible to be seated for 8 bloddy hours cramped in with the tight seat arrangement with little or no comfort
@@jouniairplanevideos I agree, however, the A320's series is 7" wider than the MAX series so each seat gets an additional inch in width. I"m sure if Icelandair could use those 7" to make money, they would.....
I agree!
It seems that has become the norm for most airlines. How many cattle can we stuff in our planes to maximize profit. Passengers won't mind, it's only for a couple of hours.
Gorgeous landing shot on PDX 28R about 50 seconds in.
It used to be a pleasure to see Icelandic 757's. I hope to see them again at YVR soon !!!
ICEs' senior management would love you if you paid the fuel bills. Promised!
I’m not surprised, but I really love the 757 in icelandair’s livery! 🇮🇸
*just wait for the new one my guy*
@@suomalainenpallo27 yes… I honestly hate the new livery
what about the Max 10?
Is Boeing going ahead with the 575X
Any of the fleet of AIRBUS wide body or narrow body aircrafts. They modern fuel consumption very economical long or short range travel.
Nothing beats the 757!
This is a good cause for Boeing to develop the 797 as a 757 replacement. Airbus at the moment is completely in control of this segment and longer 737s just won't be enough anymore.
Boeing is facing big financial difficulties to develop a new plane. The 797 or something like that would be a good move. But I suspect that Boeing will come with a new version of the 787-3or a revamped 767. The MAX fiasco, repetitive the quality issues with the 787 and the future 777X is consuming too much resources until 2025. At least....
They aren’t interested, a 767max or something is their best bet imo
The McDonnell-Douglas engineers who helped with the 757 are no longer around, so a 797 to replace the 757 would require engineers with the same background.
No modern engine is suitable and delivering fuel burn advantages Boeing want.
I think the 787 would be the best replacement for both their 757/767's , after all Boeing originally said the Dreamliner was supposed to replace both the 757 & 767 and was to be just as efficient on short haul as long haul.
Maybe Boeing could rethink the 787-3 👌
The 787-3 is nothing but a 787-8 with some modifications for short haul flights, so that wouldn’t be the solution as it’s exactly the size as the 787-8
@@spongebubatz The 787-3 could seat 250-270 and go 5000 Nautical miles, whereas the 787-8 can seat a minimum of 218 and a max of 242 in 2 a class configuration and go 7355 Nautical Miles.
The Boeing 757-200 in 2 class configuration could seat 200-228 and go 3915nm and the 757-300 could seat 243-280 and go 3400nm.
So the 787-3 was pretty close the the 753 but better in some ways like Payload, range and the fact she's a widebody, so more spacious etc... and the 787-8 is similar to a 753 passenger number wise, but much better range.
I think a 787-3 would be the perfect solution to replace the 757 👍
@@guitarplayerforu if only that was right! The 787-3 would’ve had the same fuselage as the 787-8! It’s only difference were different wings and some modifications for shorter flights! It has the exact same fuselage after all, so your numbers are off. It is the complete opposite to the 757: The 757 is your long low demand routes, the 787-3 for short high demand routes. If the 787-3 was the solution the 787-8 would’ve sold much better than it already does, it’s the same fuselage, remember?
Also, if your numbers were right I can’t really follow what you’re trying to say. The 787-8 already has a higher capacity than the 757-200 and -300, so the 787-3 with, according to you, more capacity, is the solution. Sorry, but I don’t get it.
By the way, they have the exact same fuselage, just in case this didn’t become clear!
@@spongebubatz I'm sorry, I stand corrected, it was actually 290-330 that the 787-3 was intended to seat, so like the smaller 767-200.
The thing with the 787 is she's incredibly fuel efficient, even when not full, so a 787-3 probably would have still worked out cheaper to run than 757's, even if at times they didn't operate at full capacity.
I think any 787 version is just too much capacity for this airline on their core routes. Their smartest move would be to ditch their Max fleet and commit to the XLR. All but tailor made for this airline, as they could reach any US or European city out of Keflavik.
Will you be covering the new SkyCana airline?
I like the Boeing 757 so much! my dad flies it but for American airlines.
Didn't American retired the 757?
@@gabrielb9010 He used to fly actually.
I don’t think he does
I dont get it. Is there any advantage by going with the MAX instead of the LR and XLR?
Icelandair is an all Boeing operator so their whole operations are geared around Boeing engineering, spares, flight/cabin crew training and logistics. Icelandair is not not a big airlines, so introducing the A321xlr would be expensive.
It's really only commonality. The A321neo family is a much better 757 replacement than the 737 MAX 10 but would introduce additional fleet complexity. The A321neo does, however, have the advantage that it only takes 7 days training for an A321neo pilot to fly the A330neo, which would make a good replacement for their 767s and 757-300s
You forgot to mention THE FISH! The 757 is a stellar jet, absolute travesty Boeing dropped the ball. My favourite all time jetliner.
757 is best airplane ever?
Boeing should have created an upgraded re-engined 757, called the 757 Max instead of making the 737 Max in my opinion, the 757 could be used on both short and med haul routes.
The 757 is a BEAUTIFUL jet, a great example of industrial design. However, as a business tool, it failed. The 757 was intended (i) to supercede the 727 as a marketable product in the Boeing portfolio and (ii) to replace the existing specimen of the type in airline service. Of the 727, 1832 had been delivered, but the 757 was only sold 1050 times. In terms of orders received, Boeing had two good (but not outstanding) years in 1988/89, but thereafter the interest of the airlines faded away. When in 2004 Boeing gave up and ultimately scrapped the manufacturing basis, there had been a reason for it. And this reason was that the 757 had been beaten in the marketplace. Over its last years it had become a dud. The newly introduced and much more sophisticated A320 / A321 prevailed (and, to tell the complete story, the ugly but cheaper little half sister in the Boeing portfolio killed the rest).
@@kermecke The A321 still doesn't come close in terms of performance or payload to the B757. A lot of airlines who operate or operated the 757 wanted Boeing to build a true replacement for her.
@@helwatywahab5236 best narrow body. Boeing could have upgraded the 757 family and it would be the top of the narrow body class. 757-200 still flies farther than the A321XLR.
It’s either A321XLR or Max 9 or a small number of both. That’s my thoughts. However replacing the -300 on the other hand will be much harder
The 757-300 is longer than the A321XLR and the max 9 so they won’t be a replacement for the 757-300
The west coast US routes are the difficult one as not only are they long I suspect they carry a lot of cargo as well (frozen fish mostly). The best short-term answer might be the 767 but Boeing hasn't sold a new passenger 767 in years so it would require them to take that back into production. The 787 might be another possibility but since the 787-3 was never built it might be too large. I don't see them going Airbus though for crew training reasons so I think it comes down to some mix of 737-MAX plus 767 or 787 aircraft. One argument for the 767 is that Icelandair has two dedicated cargo 757s in their fleet also and which only the 767 currently has a cargo version that could replace them, there is no all-cargo version of any of the other aircraft discussed in this video.
My understanding was that Icelandair's plan was to convert the current 767s into cargo-only.
A321XLR would be more than sufficient to replace 752, in fact slighly better, if it performs as spec. The problem is actually fleet commonality.
Had Icelandair start new they could have followed WOW and PLAY, having a fleet centered at A321NEO variants.
@@steinwaldmadchen What about cargo operations? There is no cargo version of the XLR so no way to complete fleet commonality. As it is the airline will need to keep either their 757s or 767s for cargo operations which means bringing in the XLR for long routes silly. Icelandair also has significant charter operations that may operate flights even longer than KEF-SFO and also owns Cape Verde Airlines with its own fleet of 757s and which sometimes they share aircraft with sos whatever is chosen likely needs to work for them as well. There are no easy answers unfortunately unless they give up serving the west coast of the US.
@@solracer66 Modern widebodies have plenty of payloads. Say, A330 has 45t, more than enough for 200ish passengers plus cargo payload comparable to a 757F.
787 has even higher max payload. A321P2F may or may not replace 757F, I've no ideas how far they fly the freighters.
Otherwise A321XLR has higher payload range than 757 on spec. If it performs as expected it'd have no issues replacing 757. For a fleet heavy centered around 752, it’s probably the closest 1-to-1 replacement. Other alternatives require significant network rework.
@@steinwaldmadchen The Airbus A321PF freighter can carry only 28 metric tons a distance of 3800 km vs the 757 which can carry nearly 40 metric tons a distance of 5834 km so it is hardly a 757 replacement in either range or carrying capacity, especially with Seattle being 5812 km away. The A330 would be a better comparison with the 757 but you would still have the flight crew commonality issue. One nice thing about the 757/757F/767 fleet they have now is that they can mix the crews which they can't do with A321/A330 without going through much more extensive pilot training and I don't think they would like to have to have crews that can only fly two of their aircraft (the freighters).
Unfortunately even if there was a 797 NMA, it is relatively large (220+ seats /minimum/?! What happened to 200 2-class?)
A slightly larger aircraft is not the end of the world, as long as it has better economics. Not to mention they have 753 and 767 as well, which NMA would be the closest replacement.
They can mix and match between the MAX and the NMA if the demand is weak.
I flew on Icelandair B757s from London to Boston in 2004. It is two local flights joined together to make a transatlantic trip. Tiny seats, rubber chicken meal, limited entertainment, but very cheap. You get what you pay for. A321XLR would be ideal for Icelandair's longer routes. I wish they would add extra destinations like Palm Springs.
787-8
XLR makes sense, but would Icelandair want to make the jump from being a single type operator with the advantages that brings?
The A321 XLR suits the “middle of the market” range and would suit Icelandair, but they are a full Boeing operator. Possibly a 787-8 but it’s not very practical for what Icelandair do. If Boeing EVER make that 797 it would do Icelandair. They could operate the 787 Max 10 though. I’m still onboard (quite literally! 😂) with the idea of re-enginning the 757.
A330-800 might make sense with its smaller capacity and a cheaper entry price
Those are much bigger than the 757's, and have bigger engines so they guzzle more kerosene. I have reasonable doubt to believe that the A330-800 will be the replacement.
Actually the smallest A330's (200 / 800) start at 240 passengers and are widebody (2 rows rather than the single on the A321's). They're really B767 replacements, although by that capacity the smallest B787 enters the field.
Dreamliner far superior choice.
They have an all boeing fleet, so i’d imagine a 787-8 will do the job. This just highlights how much the Boeing NMA needs to arrive soon.
@@magnustan841 but Boeing is a private company n hard to justify the investment.
I am so exited to be flying those Icelandair 757! my company just received 2 of them converted to cargo. They look such a nice livery on Amerijet Livery. will receive 4 more in coming months.
What about 788??
Oh no! The pencils will stop being sharpened again!
I should use the 787-8 for the 757-200 with more leg space!. Some 757-200 flights could fit the 737-MAX planes. For the 767 should I use the 787-9 and or -10. one type for longhaul. Also very usefull for EU flights. Example AirEuropa mad-ams flights 787-8/-9. Or svo-ams by aeroflot 777-300ER.
edit later on:
The787-8 could fit 248 seats. With (slightly) more comfy seats and more pitch they could fit 200 seats. Ideal, because the MAX9 could fit 220 seats at 28 inch pitch. So 180/200 at 30 inch pitch or more. If capacity drops to much the could sent the MAX. Better fleet (change) capabillity and more technical common. same cockpit same aerodynamics like chevrons and apu. Same manufacture/ philosophy.
Too heavy for airports = more cost $$$$
@@williamerazo3921 i think that could be compensated due the more fuel efficient engines. some less fuel is needed for those flights. Also all of those airports could fit the dreamliner. So were are you talking about?
@@jouniairplanevideos Trip cost of 788 is actually similar to 763. It's seat cost that 787 significantly outperform previous aircraft, still the trip cost gap is too big compared to 757.
@@steinwaldmadchen ok, but still cheaper than a 757 if you compare in ratio. More seats better fuel burn etc. Could compensate the higher tax.
@@jouniairplanevideos Compare that with an A321XLR, which easily slash seat/trip cost by 30% from 757 (according to Arkia, the launch customer of LR), or MAX.
Plus you don’t risk flying empty with these frames.
its so sad to see the 757s slowly getting retired across many airlines
I will never accept it
It is going the way of the DC8s it was designed to replace and whose performance it was designed to replicate. Sad. Sad. Sad,
I had my last international trip onboard Icelandair‘s 757 last year! I really hope it still takes some time until it’s finally replaced ;)
Not the 757-300s just the 200s
787-8 will be their best bet. Lower pilot training fees, more capacity than the 321s and possibly new opportunities both in onboard service and destination's
I think the plane will be too big for the airline
@@theskyline1425 They could add more 767s. They already have 2 of them.
@@johnswanson2600 yeah they could
@@johnswanson2600 767 is discontinued as a passenger aircraft, and Boeing is unwilling to reopen even at the request of US3.
They could get some 2nd hand late-built 767s, but likely they can't go beyond 2030s.
@@steinwaldmadchen I didn't know that. I just knew they added two of them in 2016. The 787 probably would make the most sense then.
What is the point of flying West Coast to Europe using a narrowbody and a 3rd country connection?
The best idea to not retire the 757s they're soooo good !!
No Icelandair 757 are getting old
@@gabrielb9010 they shall preserve the 757s
@@gabrielb9010 at least 757 with rbs are 1000 times better than the a321xlr
@@gabrielb9010 only the 757-200s not 757-300
787-8 will be the best replacement with 2-4-2 configuration on economy class
What an absolutely horrible experience that must have been… Taking a 737 from Seattle to Iceland!
Not any worse than flying an A320 that far. That plane is dreadful.
It wasn't bad. Doesnt matter the plane's size at all, it matters the interior layout, which was very well designed for comfort.
I’ve flown on United’s 737 MAX9 from ORD to FAI in First Class, which wasn’t bad. The return trip was on the same bird from ANC to ORD in Premium Economy at ~6.5 hours average each way. KEF to SEA is 1.5 hours longer. I agree with what someone else said: layout is key.
A couple of Edmonton fishmonger stores in Edmonton depend on daily, fresh shipments of fish from Iceland. The freshly caught fish is packed in ice practically straight off the fishing boat. In the past, this would have been impossible but this level of airfreight was unheard of 15 years ago. It also means we get affordable direct airline flights to Iceland or flights to Europe involving Iceland as a stopover hub.
They can choose to go all Boeing, 737 & 767, they can choose to go all Airbus, A320 NEO, A321 NEO and A 321 NEO XLR or a combination of both Boeing and Airbus.
An all Airbus fleet would have the advantage of commonality for pilots, but would require retraining the current 737 flight crews and ground maintenance crews.
Staying with Boeing would eliminate the need to retrain current 737 crews although they will need to retrain their 757 crews no matter which plane they chose to replace the 757, other than the 767.
In the end, it will be a question of which manufacturer offers the best deal.
The 757-300 is longer than the A321XLR so the A321XLR won’t be a replacement for the 757-300
Come on boeing, your 767 line is still open. Reopen the passenger line and offer new build 767-300s with a buyback agreement once the 797 is flying. You might have a few extra carriers jump at this. Im all for the A321xlrv success but many pond hopping routes require something alittle bigger but not as big as the A330 or 787. Only time will tell.
787-8 could fit 248 seats. With (slightly) more comfy seats and more pitch they could fit 200 seats. Ideal, because the MAX9 could fit 220 seats at 28 inch pitch. So 180/200 at 30 inch pitch or more. If capacity drops to much the could sent the MAX. Better fleet (change) capabillity and more technical common. same cockpit same aerodynamics like chevrons and apu. Same manufacture/ philosophy.
Post that comment on Boeing's channel so that they see it.
@@polishavgeek1849 you mean my?
@@jouniairplanevideos no, no... i mean the top one. By @Bill Doyle
I totally agree, or maybe they could re-engine the 767, give her the sky interior and 787 style Avionics and call her the 767-800 & 767-900?
Thank you.
Love to visit Iceland someday
Aaaannddd the infatuation with the A321XLR by Simple Flying continues ;P
I'm not going back to Iceland on a 737-Max that's for sure !
I think you switched it up, boing 757 200 is shorter than 757 300 and in icelandair set up has around 200 seats. Best regards
I would like to see them stay with Boeing. Would it be cheaper that way? No cross training on different aircrafts.
I hope they do because Boeing doesn't have many narrow body long range aircrafts except the Max series of the 737. Airbus is the only one that can offer a more fuel efficient 757 replacement to Icelandair.
Icelandair will not replace their 757-300, they still have them in their fleet
The A321 XLR is the best option!
And so would the A321XER
Maybe not because if we check their fleet, it’s an all-Boeing fleet for jet powered aircrafts. Only one Airbus ever entered service with Icelandair and it’s only for a year. Not totally ruling out Airbus aircraft, they also need to find a replacement for the 767s that they have very soon as they are retiring 2 of their 767s from passenger use to be converted to freighters. I think they might opt for the 787 family as replacement for both their 757s and 767s.
If not the A321XLR or NEO, then what about the 737 MAX-10? It's an obvious win for fleet commonality. How does that stack up for performance though? Assuming Boeing can get it certified!
The B757 is so good. Sad to see it go.
Indeed.
KennyKhang1312: whoa there! Icelandair is not Retiring Their 757-300s, they still have them in their fleet
A mix of A321 LR and A321 XLR is the obvious solution for Icelandair...
Why Not retrofit the B757, with updated engines and the cockit with updated tecnologies??? They are puting on a fire all B757's fleet to acquire A321XLR, if B757 works well why not retrofit and updated???
757 is just not as efficient as 737 and A321, due to its higher weight. The majority of customers don’t need the range, only capacity.
A smaller 787 single aisle version.
The nma wouldve been perfect
Only a 757 can replace a 757
No
@@gabrielb9010 There's no proper 757 replacement rn.The MAX 10 has whack performance while the A321neo doesn't have hot temperature short field performance the 757 has
@Santiago Ornelas It's a different market.787-8 is widebody,and I don't think it has short field performance
@@EAGSAviationYT A321NEO actually have slightly shorter takeoff distance per spec.
I got 757 model of icelandair.
Too bad Boeing did not come up with a replacement for the 757. So many airlines are looking to replacing their aging fleet now. The 737 MAX? I will let airlines work out the kinks at least for the next few years before I feel comfortable flying in one.
Boeing should have re-engined the 757 instead of the 737, they probably wouldn’t have as many issues as they do today
@@barrel6468 My thoughts exactly 👌. The 737's airframe originates from the 707, so is a lot older than the much more modern 757 airframe which is a similar age to the A320 family. They could have borrowed the swept wing, engines, avionics and interior from the 787 and called her the 757-800 and 757-900 and that would have future proofed the 757 👍
@@barrel6468 The fateful decision to "max" the 737 was made in 2011, when the 757 production line in the Renton factory had already been scrapped for seven years.
And the 757 production line had been scrapped after the beautiful but economically not viable type had already been squeezed out of the market. That was back in the 1990s.
I always scratch my head when I notice how many people (like you, but not to insult you) fall into nostalgic sentiment regarding the 757 and phantasize about a missed (ficticious) re-engine program. The 757 and 767 were sister projects in the 1970s, and on this one occasion Boeing succeeded to coordinate two divisions in a way that both types got a nearly identical flight deck (what was sadly appreciated by the 9/11 planners). But cockpit technology advanced rapidly and after a few years the 767 instruments were modernized. At this time the 757 market performance had already been so poor that Boeing withheld the upgrade from that product line.
@@kermecke Don’t get me wrong, I understand the reason they didn’t improve the 757 and it makes perfect sense. Although with the 787 lines in Everett shut down now and the new market for an aircraft similar to the 757, who knows?
Is it really a question ? As to which aircraft can be a direct replacement to the B752, there is not currently an aircraft that matches the B752 or B753 but the nearest match on paper is the A321 XLR, yes ?
It has already been stated the the MAX does not have the range to replace.
All in all this is a monumental error by Boeing to drop an aircraft from it’s range rather than update it when nothing available replaces it
The problem is that Icelandair Cargo has two dedicated 757 freighters and there is no freighter version of the XLR so that makes the 767 a better choice because it comes in both passenger and freighter versions.
@@solracer66
767 is old stock & offers no advantage over the 757s
Boeing had to drop it. The McDonnell-Douglas engineers who designed it are all dead.
@@josephlindquist506 i’m sure the original 737 designers are all dead as well, what’s your point ?
B737max and B787
Iceland Air…for goodness sakes please don’t cram your passengers in a 737 for upto 8 hours. The 321 is a much better choice for customer comfort.
are you joking?
@@jouniairplanevideos If you’re going to tell me the 737 family has more customer comfort than the 321 family, you are living in fantasy land. The 737-100 was introduced in 1967 and the inside cabin width was 11ft 5in. The “new” 737max’s is 11ft 7in. It’s an old and tired airframe that Boeing has simply, down through the years, lengthened and installed larger more fuel efficient engines. No significant passenger room comfort has evolved in 50 years.
@@grriceman782 I totally agree, for me, as a German, it's not attractive to fly with Iceland Air since we have many direct flight so the US and so Iceland Air should get me with their planes. Sorry,but this won't happen, I don't want to fly the 737 on long haul, a plane that never was constructed to fly on long haul.
@@grriceman782 those 737 flies standard with 3- inch. air bus on the other hand has 28 inch due ther new "comfort" airspace cabin. it depends on the airlines configuration and or modification. Also the NG seat are more comfy than its PG sisters.
@Santiago Ornelas Durable? 787 was grounded multiple times due to various issues. And quality especially from Charleston is questionable.
Many years ago it was said Icelandair will going to replace its 757' s with Dreamliners.
You know the meaning of the word "dream", don't you?
787-8 could be a nice option
The Airbus A321XLR is also the best choice and Some Airlines have ordered them.
I am quite sure that, if the A321(X)LR wuold have been a thing back when Icelandair ordered the 737MAX, they would have gone for it and switched to Airbus. At this point the cost of switching operations to the 737 or A320 would have been the same. But know that they decided to go for the MAX they kind of have to stick with it, because they invested heavily in the Type (Icelandair was one of the few Airlines that had MAX simulators before the grounding as they had to retrain all their crews.) And in the end they are too small to operate 2 types that are virtualy the same
Boeing did buy back SIA's A340 in order to win 777 deals. Not sure if Airbus would do the same.
@@steinwaldmadchen While ICE invested heavily in the MAX, it could have used the grounding to cancel the contracts and claim damages. In fact they only reduced the MAX order by four units. They have (again) missed the chance.
I agree with many other commentators that splitting up a small fleet is a bad path. To maxim .. - to optimize future profitability it has to be "all or nothing". ICE could get rid of the MAX by involving a lessor, sell and lease back the planes for 4-5 years and in the meantime replace the remaining 757s with A321s.
The best option is, I think, definitively A321 LR
They would be wise to purchase the Airbus A321 XLR, it is the best option for them
Nothing can replace the Boeing 757. But if the real world capabilty of the XLR lives up to the hype, it would be the sensible choice. Boeing better come up with a ridiculously good aircraft if they want to stand a chance of winning back some of the XLR's market share. A 757 with 787 tech would be a worthy successor, but I highly doubt they will go ahead with it.
They won't, because the McD-D engineers who helped with it are all dead, and Boeing has its head in the sand when it comes to aerodynamic stability.
They should make a B757 NG - new materials, more fuel efficient engines and lower cost parts.
Honestly? More Max 9 and soon, MAX-10 (+ 1-2 787) variants for Icelandair, that is the answer. Why should they change the type rating for A321 when they fly with Boeing from decades...?
Thats exactly what I'm thinking.
They’re one of the few airlines which push 757 to the limits, flying passengers and cargo far.
As stated in the video, MAX8 is already struggling on their longest routes, -9 and -10 would perform even worst. Not even comparable to a standard A321NEO.
787 on the other hand is too big. It can replace 753 and 763, but not the majority of 752.
@@steinwaldmadchen I was saying that. The 787 would replace the 753 and 763. But let me tell you that ALL the MAX variants have more range than the regular A321neo, so I think range wise it is comparable to the NEO. The MAX may not be the perfect replacement option though, and in that case I do feel it may be the A321LR/XLR.
Air bus please Iceland Air...:):):)
Time to rethink the 783.
You have to recognize the difficulty of replacing the 75. Regrettably there isn't an aircraft that meets the sweet spot.
How do customers feel about these long journey's on these small planes? It sounds awful.
I flew twice with them and it wasn't that bad after all. The seatspace was also not disappointing after all!
We say small planes, but consider that the golden ‘jet set’ age happened on 707s that were essentially using the same fuselage that we’d find on the 737, and that is looked back on as the era where flying was a more luxurious experience (on average) overall.
Cabin layout is more important than being a wide body. A densely configured 777 can be less comfortable then the all-business class A318’s British Airways was using for transatlantic flights between London City and New York.
Just because it’s a narrow body doesn’t mean it has to be configured like a low cost carrier with maximum seat density.
It is awful…!
@@BrySkye If only they were not packed wall to wall with narrow thin seats. Those 707's had nice wide seats for everyone.
Maybe Iceland Air will choose the A321LR or XLR but I don't know maybe they might choose the MAX 10. The LR or XLR though would be better for the airline route wise but the MAX 10 would be better for fleet commonality. But as the 737 MAX aircraft that Iceland Air have can do 85% of their network I think that they need something with more range, they could pick the 787-8, as that has loads of range and could also replace their 767s too.
The 757-300 is longer than the A321XLR the A321LR and the Max 10 so the MAX 10 the A321XLR and the A321LR won’t be a replacement for the 757-300
@@sebastianfloyd372 The -300 is almost in it's own category. Icelandair only has an extremely small fleet of those plus they lack range so they could just get more of a smaller option that would replace the rest of the 757 fleet
The A321 XLR certainly would make sense if they don’t mind operating Airbus and Boeing. If they wanted to stick with boeing I’m surprised nobody mentioned the MAX 10? Seems logical to me.
According to me they should replace there 757 from a321 LR/XLR or bigger widebody like a330-800
The 757-300 is longer than the A321XLR and the A321LR so the A321XLR and A321LR won’t be a replacement for the 757-300
The A321 is a good option, but they will need something comparable to the 767 for longer routes as the A321 and 737MAX cannot go those long distances.
I don't see any roots that the A321 LR or XLR couldn't handle. The XLR has almost the same range as the 757.
The 321XLR will actually have longer range than the 757.
Boeing should have continued with 757 instead of the ancient 737
The A321 is just to small an aircraft for a flight of that length. The 767 would give the passenger the room and comfort the passenger would expect on a flight of that length.
Dude…this airline flies 757s and 737 Max, both single aisle aircraft, with flight times of 5+ hours. How would the A321 be such a radical change? The question of passenger comfort on long flights is dictated primarily by two AIRLINE decisions: seat width and pitch. That decision can go wrong just as easily on a 767 as it can on an A321.
The Lr or Xlr of Airbus Range quit really good....But in payload and performance cant much for the Migthy 757..i dont know why boeing did not upgrade this type??rather the 737 max they upgrade but have some techinical issues till know...
Boeing didn't upgrade it because the McDonnell-Douglas engineers who designed it were all dead.
Wrong. At least on paper LR is close to 757 in terms of payload, while XLR overperforms.
Simple Flying would do good on Tik Tok I think.
Icelandair has been historically an all Boeing fleet but I think they should use the A321XLR on those long routes because the B797 isn't coming out any time soon
Either A321xlr or 787-8’s or both maybe some destinations could have enough demand for a 787-8 but others not so those destinations should be used by an A321XLR
That's what I'm thinking. It's either XLR or MAX 10. The only reason they would choose MAX 10 is fleet commonality.
Or, they can stick to the 737 MAX and make a joint venture with an airline in the US to fly those longer routes with their metal. That’s what Brazilian GOL does with American Airlines.
My guess is they will CHOOSE the A321XLR
Fake, the 757-300 is longer than the A321XLR so the A321XLR won’t be a replacement for the 757-300
@@sebastianfloyd372 OK, which aircraft do you think is the replacement for the 757?
Only one choice. A320!
Boeing again have sat back and never built a replacement for either 757 or 767 or 737 It's a crying shame that so much forward business has been lost by doing nothing.
So sad, I love the 757😫
Probably a combination of Max’s and 787’s. Their 757 experience was only borderline comfortable. Their 767 was a much better.
I flew the Icelandair 757 way back in 2000.
Plenty comfortable.
I could see a max 10 replacing the 757
Same, just because of the fleet commonality.
@@BinkBricks I wouldve thought they would plan ahead and have gotten A320 family aircraft over the MAX otherwise so the MAX10 would make sense...
The Max 10 has the shortest range of the 737Max series, so I doubt that.
@@Tiger313NL Boeing could put axu tank in it, just not sure if the MTOW could be boosted up enough
@@umi3017 If they could do that easily, they would have definitely done so by now. Considering the 737 MAX 10 is already pushing the limits of the 737 airframe, I doubt it is possible without major structural changes
If they paint the 321 in the aurora livery then I will be happy 😊
I just flew in an Icelandair 737 Max-8, it didn’t feel anywhere near as modern as an Airbus A321 NEO and the seats were horribly uncomfortable. Quite unsuitable for more than a few hours of travel
Yeah I would have to agree
Cool