Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Did The 757 Die?  
User currently offlineAlbird87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 13138 times:

Hey just wanted to know that why was the 757 not as a great as selling as the new 737NGs??? I mean it seems that the new 737-900(ER) is trying to be the replacement for the 757 but the 757 was a great aircraft (to see and fly!) It suprised me that boeing didnt try and update this aricraft like they did with the 737. Was she too heavy or not upgradable?? I cant see why that production line has closed when the 737 is still open (and will be for a long time)
IMO I thinkg that the 757 is a greater aircraft and had some great performance as well (mainly due to her being overpowered). I mean you dont know what a take off is like till you have been launched into the back of your seat as the 757 climbed away!!! Also with the 757 now being used on long ETOP journeys, it seems odd how boeing didnt think of upgrading her to allow more sales! I know she is still bigger than the 737s but she was a wonderful aircraft and i am sad to see her not being produced anymore and now some of them being taken to the scrappers!!
Any comments would be great.

48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePlanesailing From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 816 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 13107 times:

I believe it was because new orders had dried up to a trickle. However, since the closure of the line, airlines have found the aircraft as a niche operator across the ponds on thin routes.

In closing the 757 line, Boeing consolidated "its" resources into the 737 family, which is going from strength to strength in sales.


User currently offlineZBA320 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 13067 times:

I guess it could of got upgraded Avionics and a fully glass flight deck like the 777 or 737NG. Shorting the fuselage isn't economically viable and Boeing study this years ago.

The only real upgrade it got was in the form of the -300 series of which only around 50 were built. Boeing simply introduced too late in the market.

Perhaps if 757 was used earlier on Atlantic routes it might of soon a increase in sales promoting Boeing to reconsider closing production.  Sad

The 757 is still a major workhorse and I, despite me been an Airbus fan, always love to fly a 757. Where it's in 28in pitch or 50in, it's still one of the best birds that flies.  Smile



An Engineer made a bet that a 747 Gear wouldn't retract in a Hangar. He lost the bet.
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 12944 times:

Because airlines stopped ordering the type, so simple is it.

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30883 posts, RR: 86
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 12941 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Albird87 (Thread starter):
Hey just wanted to know that why was the 757 not as a great as selling as the new 737NGs?

The 757's forte was long-range travel. Before the launch of the A320 family and Boeing's introduction of the 737NG family, the 757 was the most efficient transcontinental (2000-2500nm) performer. Now with the A320 and 737NG, the 757 really only shines in the mainland-Hawai'i and East Coast-trans-Atlantic markets. And that need is covered pretty well by existing frames, so new orders fell to the point Boeing would make far more money converting the space taken by the 757 line to a 737 line - which is what they did.


User currently offlineWarreng24 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 707 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 12799 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
The 757's forte was long-range travel. Before the launch of the A320 family and Boeing's introduction of the 737NG family, the 757 was the most efficient transcontinental (2000-2500nm) performer. Now with the A320 and 737NG, the 757 really only shines in the mainland-Hawai'i and East Coast-trans-Atlantic markets.

Exactly.

The only reason that a 757 would be preferable to a A320 or 737NG would be if you needed the Hot and High take off benefits of the 757 or you needed that extra MTOW for cargo or fuel.

For the typical transcontinental flight, the A321/A320/73G/738 is so much more fuel efficient.

Also keep in mind, that the 757 didn't benefit from the rise of the LCC's (like the A320 and 737NG did) mostly because it take a lot longer to load and unload. Have you ever noticed how long it takes you to get off a 753 if you're seated in the last row?  Smile


User currently offlineAlbird87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 12697 times:

Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 5):
Also keep in mind, that the 757 didn't benefit from the rise of the LCC's (like the A320 and 737NG did) mostly because it take a lot longer to load and unload. Have you ever noticed how long it takes you to get off a 753 if you're seated in the last row?

but LCC use both rear and fore doors!! so if ur at the back then ur out first!! Big grin . same could then be said for a 747 if ur at the back!


User currently offlineFerret From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12483 times:

Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 5):

For the typical transcontinental flight, the A321/A320/73G/738 is so much more fuel efficient.

Is that really true? I thought that at least the A321 was not really that efficient even compared to the 20+ year old 752 on long hauls.



Murphy lives here.
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12411 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Before the launch of the A320 family and Boeing's introduction of the 737NG family, the 757 was the most efficient transcontinental (2000-2500nm) performer.

IIRC, that was still the case even after these other aircraft entered service.

There really was a business case for shutting down the 757 line. At the time it may have been the right decision. Long term, it may have been the wrong one and it is becoming apparent.


User currently offlineGrantcv From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12391 times:

I think that fundamentally Boeing missed the mark with the B757 from the outset. It was intended to be a B727 replacement but, at the request of early customers, grew to be something larger with too much range. If Boeing had paid more attention to the market at the time, they would have built a smaller 150 seater model and then grown into the larger market that the B752 served. Instead, once they realized their mistake, they had to quickly develop the B733 and muddled about for a few years with the 7J7 concept till they realized that the B733 was good enough and would be competitive enough with whatever Airbus did.

As for the B757, it eventually found a good size market, but really was never the huge success they had hoped for the B727's successor. Ending the line came because orders had dried up, there wasn't any real promise of a second wave of orders to warrant an update, and Boeing needed to consolidate the number of models they offered - with just three as the eventual target.


User currently offlineAlbird87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12309 times:

Quoting Ferret (Reply 7):
Is that really true? I thought that at least the A321 was not really that efficient even compared to the 20+ year old 752 on long hauls.

I thought that the A321 couldnt do the same range/ performance as the 757 as its a stretched version of the A320 so there is a limited weight it can put on the frame before those single rear wheel bases would have to be strengthend considerably? as the 757 was built as a stand alone airframe (with similarities in the 767) which means that the 757 performs better than that of the A321?


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12296 times:

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 9):
I think that fundamentally Boeing missed the mark with the B757 from the outset. It was intended to be a B727 replacement but, at the request of early customers, grew to be something larger with too much range.



Quoting Grantcv (Reply 9):
As for the B757, it eventually found a good size market, but really was never the huge success they had hoped for the B727's successor.

What world do you live in where 1,050 deliveries constitutes "missing the mark" or not being a success? Do you consider the 707 a success? More 757s were delivered than civil 707s.

[Edited 2006-12-06 18:02:16]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 12275 times:

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 9):

You pretty much hit it. I have kept reading some of my old aviation books, and they all have mentioned that the 757 was a slow seller. The 757 was so much more capable than the 727, that Airbus was able to swoop in and clean house with the A320. And then Boeing made the mistake of not updating the 737 till much later.

When the 757 capabilities started to be exploited more lately, the 787 was almost on its way or already well on its way.


User currently offlineFerret From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12163 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 12):

I think you summed it up. The 757 sold well, but I think as you mention it was all about the timing. In the what could have been category: Had Boeing updated the 737 maybe 8-10 years sooner, I'd say the 757 would continue in production until the 787 EIS. But Boeing lost focus there for a few years and the 757 paid the price.

Some interesting side-by-sides:

..................737-800..............737-900ER..............757-200
.......................................... (2 aux fuel)
PAX 2cls.......162....................180 ......................200
Max Fuel.......6,875.................7,837.....................11,489
Cruise Spd....0.785 Mach..........0.78 Mach..............0.80 Mach
Max Rng.......3,060..................3,200.....................3,900
Max Cargo....1,555 cu ft .........1,585 cu ft..............1,670 cu ft

Source: Boeing.com

I think this underscores that they really are different aircraft. The 737-900ER is a 'close enough' filler until the 787 comes along.



Murphy lives here.
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3549 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12142 times:

I think its fair to say that a number of operators didn't make good use of the 757's talents. BA for one utilised much of its fleet on short haul shuttle services, even domestic. They did however require the seating capacity, and the manufacturers at the time could not offer any other narrowbody of similar capacity, Boeing had only the 737-200, and McD the MD80 series. Airbus had no narrowbody to offer at all.

As the 737 grew, and the A32 series arrived there were good economies to be made by replacing short haul 757's.

These have then been put to good use on Transatlantic routes and for freight conversion, but of course its only a limited market.

In the UK however the charter airlines do seem to get good utilisation out of their 757's flying as many passengers as possible as far as possible.

I've enjoyed my 757 flights, hope to have more and susupect that this plane will be with us for a while.


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12070 times:

Maybe if updated engines had been available, sales wouldn't have tailed off?

A problem for the 757, is that no other aircraft (apart from the C17) uses engines of that size - by contrast variants of the smaller CFM56 have been used in the 737, 737NG, A320, A340, DC8-70, KC135...



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3549 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12003 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 15):
Maybe if updated engines had been available, sales wouldn't have tailed off?

A problem for the 757, is that no other aircraft (apart from the C17) uses engines of that size - by contrast variants of the smaller CFM56 have been used in the 737, 737NG, A320, A340, DC8-70, KC135...

I don't think its just the engines, which in all likelihood RR & P & W could have upgraded; most aircraft see a gradual change in engine mod standards during production, and often even a new design engine. There's the fundamental problem of bulk, just look at a 737 and a 757 side by side its like comparing agymnast to a shotputter. The 757 is vastly overengineered for shorthaul and can never compete.


User currently offlineZBA320 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 11988 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 15):
Maybe if updated engines had been available, sales wouldn't have tailed off?

The engines were the key to 757 success on longer routes because of it's Hot and High performance. The RR 757 were basically smaller version of 747 engines so there was some, but not a lot of communality between 757 and 747 in MX terms.

I don't think updated engines would of made a difference to sales IMHO.



An Engineer made a bet that a 747 Gear wouldn't retract in a Hangar. He lost the bet.
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6421 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 11787 times:

Now we have to keep in mind that all 757s are not the same.

I have often wondered why so many a.netters have told about the 757 being overpowered and such. I never experienced that, but then I have only been on 757s from BA and Icelandair.

Lately I found the explanation:

Most 757s on the west side of the pond are equipped with the RB-211-535-E4 or -E4B which makes them good hot-and-high performers which at a modest extra cost came in handy on for instance North-South American routes.

Most European 757s have the much lower powered RB-211-535-C. Probably few European operators needed that hot-and-high performance, and also didn't need the extra range of the high powered birds. A 535-C powered 757 has somewhat lower weights, smaller fuel tanks and a typical range of only 3,000 nm (typical range on high powered versions being 3,900 nm).

That explains why European 757s are mostly considered nice 727 replacements, while in the US 757s are considered "rockets". It is simply true. While American 757s have rather exceptional take-off performance, then European 757s are just ordinary lame airliners.

European 757s are capacity and range wise almost head on competitors to heavy A321 versions. Also available power is not all that different, 2 x 37,000 lbs on the 757 vs. 2 x 33,000 on the 321.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineChicagoFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 272 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11703 times:

Quoting Ferret (Reply 7):

Is that really true? I thought that at least the A321 was not really that efficient even compared to the 20+ year old 752 on long hauls.

Of course it all depends on the market and the configuration of the aircraft. I would say that (taking the same cabin density) in terms of CASM on a US transcon route B757 is definitely more efficient than a A319, mostly (depending on the market) more efficient than A320, and approximately equal to or somewhat less efficient than A321.

However, airlines need to produce profits, not lower CASMs. And transcons are notoriously difficult to make money on, because the RASM is often not there. A 757 due to its size will almost certainly have a lower RASM than a smaller airplane (again, assuming the same cabin density). Reason is that 1) A bigger plane is more difficult to fill and 2) Once filled, the marginal seat will likely have sold for a lower price.

This is part of the reason we see p.s. with UA. A creative use of a 757 which deliberately increases costs but takes much higher average (and marginal!) revenue. And once again,the opportunity to have this option depends on the market.

Otherwise, I agree about Hawaiian and transatlantic flying as the best niche for 757s as they age. 757 fans shoud feel good though as the trend is clearly toward extending the longevity of the airctaft with winglets rather than replacement.


User currently offlineSupa7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 11562 times:

The 757 works great, but burns more fuel than the A321/B739ER.

The 757 is still the best plane in the world for some missions (and maybe will be for years to come). However, for those missions, the existing fleet of ~1,000 birds is totally sufficient. For example, NW will fly some 752s to Europe in 2007. Yet NW did not need to buy any, because they already have too many as it is (and some are parked IIRC).

For other missions, the 757 is inferior to the 739ER and A321. For example, flying 175 people 1,500 miles. The 757 is no longer the best bird for that mission.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12424 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 11438 times:

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 9):
I think that fundamentally Boeing missed the mark with the B757 from the outset. It was intended to be a B727 replacement but, at the request of early customers, grew to be something larger with too much range. If Boeing had paid more attention to the market at the time, they would have built a smaller 150 seater model and then grown into the larger market that the B752 served.

I agree with your point but I will point out that I've read why this happened. The 757 was launched during a weak economic period in general and for the airlines in particular, and Boeing only had the choice between listening to the launch customers who wanted the larger airplane, or not launching it at all.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineGrantcv From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11312 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 11):
What world do you live in where 1,050 deliveries constitutes "missing the mark" or not being a success? Do you consider the 707 a success? More 757s were delivered than civil 707s.

Yes, the B757 was a success, but not the success it should have been. It sold at roughly half the rate that the B727 sold - yet in a period where the market for aircraft was much larger. The older yet updated B737 become the hot seller. That wasn't what was originally anticipated.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
I agree with your point but I will point out that I've read why this happened. The 757 was launched during a weak economic period in general and for the airlines in particular, and Boeing only had the choice between listening to the launch customers who wanted the larger airplane, or not launching it at all.

The B757 was concieved just before deregulation in the US. Boeing (and Eastern Airlines) were still thinking in terms of pre-deregulation models and percieved a need for a larger B727-300 to complement the B727-200. This evolved into the B757-200 with a smaller B757-100 to replace the B727-200. But by the time the design was finalized the B757 was closely related to the B767 and the -100 model was no longer feasible, leaving a serious hole in Boeing's lineup - to be filled by the B733 and then the B734.


User currently offlineNwarooster From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1081 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10976 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 757 was dropped for a very simple reason. The 737 was beginning to reach the size and passenger capacity of the of the 757-200. Boeing did not want two of their aircraft competing against each other. It also eliminated one production line, allowing Boeing to focus on the 787. The 757-300 is to long and narrow and is a nightmare for enplaning and deplaning passengers. Economics simply made the 757 expendable.

User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10584 times:

Quoting Nwarooster (Reply 23):
The 757-300 is to long and narrow and is a nightmare for enplaning and deplaning passengers.

Can I ask if you have personally experienced problems with 753 boarding or deplaning......either as a pax or working a flight either as ground agent or as an F/A? The reason I ask is that, contrary to popular belief, there are very few problems with getting pax on and off the 753 - most of my experience has been flying the 753 on CO.......the only issue is the FLL flight where there are 120 wheel chair pax, but that is another story.

When LH ""borrowed"" a Condor 753 for a couple of months and operated the 753 on German domestic routes (they were evaluating the 753 as a possible A300 replacment).....they concluded that enplaning/deplaning pax on a 753 was not an issue and really did not take longer than widebodies with similiar capacities. LH never went with the 753 for other reasons.

The 753 is one of my favorites.......and has amazing operating costs. Its sad that the 753 was ""the wrong airplae at the wrong time"", it really is a great but undiscovered airliner that could have been a profit machine for many US airlines on high demand/low yeild domestic services.


25 Warren747sp : Why did Boeing destroyed all the tooling and molds for the 757.? Maybe they could have sold it to China or were they afraid they will learn the know h
26 Dutchjet : Because production of the type came to an end, which is because airlines were no longer placing orders for the type.......trust me, Boeing thought lo
27 Ward86IND : Haha tell me about it. I was in row 46 on a full NW flight last summer. The only cool part about being back there is how freakin loud the roar of the
28 Boston92 : In terms of cars, lets say that the 757 is the F-150, and the 767 is the F-250. The 787 is the the all new remodeled, 2009 F-250 Super Duty V8 Diesel.
29 Rampart : Or, handy in Denver, Salt Lake, and Phoenix, where United, Delta, and America West operated dozens of 757s at their respective hot and/or high hubs.
30 CO767 : Ask Continental what they think. You know they would love some 757ERs for the Euro expansion. And I'm sure a couple more 753s couldn't hurt (except ma
31 Post contains images SparkingWave : On a.net, the 757 is like Elvis. People still believe that there will be a second coming.
32 Albird87 : Um yeah...... but ford brings out a new model every year of the F-150 so how does that compare??? Also thinking about that... is there anyway for a m
33 Tristarsteve : About the only B757s delivered in Europe with RB211-535C were the BA fleet. BA operated this fleet until they sold the whole lot to DHL where they no
34 BuyantUkhaa : Eh? The C engine used more than the E engine, or the other way around?
35 TristarSteve : Soory mis typing. The C used 10% more than the E.
36 JamesJimlb : i wish boeing would go ahead and start making more!imagine the profit, airlines like American and continental pretty much depend on those planes.! but
37 EBJ1248650 : Boeing sold over 1,000 757s. That's hardly a bad news story. The 727 sold over 1,800 examples and sales like that are pretty rare. The 737 has been o
38 StevenG : As far as I know that is same reason why the 767 was a slow seller in the early eighties. Only in the second half of the eighties sales for both type
39 Dutchjet : 1. CO neither wanted not needed additional 752s - trust me, Boeng asked CO (and every other major Boeing operator) before they closed down the line.
40 Trintocan : I think that the end of the 757 line does not in itself reflect badly on the design - it did see over 1000 sales which is considerable in any terms fo
41 Post contains images JamesJimlb : the 757 is probably the best aircraft there is, from short commutes to translantic flights the 757 does it all it will be a shame when there gone. i d
42 Boeing7E7 : It's only dead until a replacement version comes along in the form of the 737RS. The 757 is the perfect US transcon bird with airfield performance per
43 Tcfc424 : My personal opinion is that because of the expansion of the 737NG line to accomodate nearly 200 pax and the introduction of the 787, Boeing decided to
44 CO767 : Well who doesent want to fly a 777 trans-atlantic. However, 777s are just not feasable from EWR to cities like Edinburg, Glasgow, Oslo, and Stockholm
45 N766UA : Because it's 30 year old technology, that's why.
46 Planespotting : old airliners never die... they just get their seats ripped out, receive engine modifications, and fly cargo for infinity
47 Post contains images BuyantUkhaa : This is the only pic I could find: Google doesn't come up with much...
48 Post contains links and images Stitch : Looks like the original 757 227/7N7 proposal: Photo courtesy of Modified Airliner Photos. Copyright Jennings Heilig.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Did The 757-300 Fail? posted Thu Jan 5 2006 23:32:34 by 1337Delta764
Why Did The 757 Exist? posted Wed Oct 5 2005 06:54:32 by Kaitak744
Why Is The 757 So Succesfull As A Cargoplane? posted Sat Dec 2 2006 14:01:43 by AbleToFly
Why Did The GE CF6-32 Engine Fail? posted Thu Mar 30 2006 18:05:16 by 1337Delta764
Why Did The Beech 2000 Starship Fail? posted Sat Mar 11 2006 19:02:57 by TupolevTu154
Why Did The MD-87 And MD-90 Fail? posted Sat Dec 3 2005 22:06:41 by 1337Delta764
Why Did The AF340 Land On Toronto's Shortest Rwy? posted Wed Aug 3 2005 22:12:31 by GLA MD11
Why Wasn't The 757 The LCC Aircraft Of Choice posted Fri Jan 28 2005 03:22:46 by Airline7322
Did The 757 Crash Into The Pentagon? posted Wed Sep 1 2004 14:31:18 by Starlionblue
Why Did The DO328 Flop? posted Sat Feb 14 2004 13:24:10 by Akjetblue