Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Success Of The 757  
User currently offlinenycdave From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 547 posts, RR: 1
Posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 12929 times:

I've seen a fair number of comments slagging the 757, but to me it seems like it actually turned out to be not just successful (in the straight "did it make money?" sense), but also a bit ahead of its time.

Although arguably a poor replacement for the 727, and not terribly efficient by current measures (not to mention never a favorite of passengers stuck in the back rows when it comes time to deplane), it seems like, especially since the introduction of the blended winglets, it's really carved out a very successful niche -- one both A and B seem to be aiming for. After all, both the A320 series and the B737s have been stretched to the point where they're just a notch in capacity smaller than the 752, and both are aiming for TATL range.

Long/thin point-to-point routes have proven successful, and the 757 is an excellent design to serve that niche. Indeed, I'm almost wondering why Boeing shut down production -- it had fairly steady (if unspectacular) sales until the post-9/11 crash.

It looks like probably the first true replacement for the 752 will be the longest version of the eventual 737 and A320 replacements.

I'm just puzzled by those who think it was/is a bad design that has no need for a replacement. I realize that for Europe/Asia markets there's little need for it, but TATL is not exactly a small or insignificant market. Can we give a little credit to the 757 being the plane A and B would eventually want to turn their 320's and 737's into?

49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinebrains From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 12861 times:

Here here...talk about a versatile platform. Used at some point on routes from 100 miles to TATL. Always a favorite of mine for sure.


Brains
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15749 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 12596 times:

Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
I'm almost wondering why Boeing shut down production

Because the orders dried up. That's really all there is to it. There was no conspiracy or vendetta against the 757, and Boeing would be more than happy to have kept selling them until now if somebody had wanted one. The simple fact is that everybody who wanted a 757 had a 757 and there were no more orders to be had.

Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
I'm just puzzled by those who think it was/is a bad design that has no need for a replacement.

There isn't much business case for a replacement since the market pales in comparison to the market to replace smaller narrowbodies.

If you had a 757 replacement and US Airways, American, Delta, United, and Continental all purchased it to replace all of their 757-200s, you would have sold about 440 airplanes.

If you had a smaller narrowbody and American purchased it to replace all of their MD-80s and Southwest purchased it to replace all of their 737 classics and all of the AirTran 717s, you would have sold over 500 planes right there.

So, it's pretty clear where one would rather put their $10 billion development investment.

Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
Can we give a little credit to the 757 being the plane A and B would eventually want to turn their 320's and 737's into?

That might be getting a bit ahead of yourself. Transatlantic range is nice but might not be the best design decision if it costs thousands of pounds in extra weight. If it were me, a new narrowbody family would have two sets of wings and landing gear, but even then, the costs of a 4000NM range might outweigh the benefits.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinenycdave From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 547 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 12525 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
Because the orders dried up.

Just not really borne out by the order log -- other than 3 years, 1988-1990, Boeing never got more than around 50 orders/year for them. Orders only "dried up" in 2002/2003 when the whole industry was in a slump post-9/11. The 767 doesn't sell any better (though I understand the KC bid does give a good reason to keep that line open regardless). Over 1000 units were sold... it's really hard to objectively say it was a commercial failure, or it's order levels had dropped off in any meaningful way.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
the costs of a 4000NM range might outweigh the benefits.

Well then, what would you suggest to fill that niche? I addressed this in my original post -- TATL may be a niche, but it's a pretty big one, and a pretty profitable one that airlines have found demand for point-to-point and high-frequency service in. What would you replace those with, until the next narrowbody replacements come out? The A330 is going to be too big, and the 762 is going to be too much plane, even if the capacity isn't that big a jump.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12495 times:

Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
Long/thin point-to-point routes have proven successful, and the 757 is an excellent design to serve that niche.

It's fine for medium range point-to-point...it's not really a "long range" plane when that term, today, means things like A330's and 777's.

Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
Indeed, I'm almost wondering why Boeing shut down production -- it had fairly steady (if unspectacular) sales until the post-9/11 crash.

Because nobody wanted one. You don't keep a line open that gets zero orders for four years.

Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
I'm just puzzled by those who think it was/is a bad design that has no need for a replacement.

I'm not aware of anyone who thinks it's a *bad* design. Not particularly passenger friendly, especially the -300, but definitely a commercial and performance success. And it doesn't "need" a replacement anymore than any aircraft "needs" a replacement...direct replacements are incredibly rare in aviation.

Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
I realize that for Europe/Asia markets there's little need for it, but TATL is not exactly a small or insignificant market.

TATL is a huge market, but it's served by a *lot* more than 757's. The niche part of TATL is connecting certain lower-traffic destinations point-to-point, which the 757 does just fine, but it's hardly the meat of the market.

Quoting nycdave (Reply 3):
Orders only "dried up" in 2002/2003 when the whole industry was in a slump post-9/11. The 767 doesn't sell any better

757: Zero in 2002, zero in 2003, 7 in 2004, zero in 2005.
767: Eight in 2002, eleven in 2003, eight in 2004, nineteen in 2005.

The 767 sold far better.

Quoting nycdave (Reply 3):
Over 1000 units were sold... it's really hard to objectively say it was a commercial failure, or it's order levels had dropped off in any meaningful way.

I'm not aware of anyone saying it was a commercial failure...it was almost certainly a commercial success. But orders went from "meaningful" to *zero* for three of the four years prior to the end of production. The orders dropped off a cliff.

Quoting nycdave (Reply 3):
TATL may be a niche, but it's a pretty big one, and a pretty profitable one that airlines have found demand for point-to-point and high-frequency service in.

Yes, but many of the point-to-point routes can support high frequency 767 or 777/A330 service. It's only a small fraction that have only enough traffic to run high-frequency 757 service, and if it's really high-frequency (more than two a day), then you can run "high-frequency" with 767/A330 anyway.

The 757 does great in the niche where it works...but that niche isn't nearly as large as a lot of people like to make it out to be and, given that the last 757's were produced in 2005, there will be airframes available to fill that relatively small niche for decades to come.

Tom.


User currently offlinenycdave From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 547 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12471 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
The 757 does great in the niche where it works...but that niche isn't nearly as large as a lot of people like to make it out to be and, given that the last 757's were produced in 2005, there will be airframes available to fill that relatively small niche for decades to come.

I disagree with the idea that most of the 757 TATL markets can support high frequency on the widebodies -- I think if that were the case, you'd see that in action.

Also, should have noted, the other "niche" the 757 once filled was transcon US -- something that B and A eventually upgraded the 737 and 320 to handle!

Point taken on the orders dropping off -- wasn't aware that they'd held open for orders that long into the decade. I wonder if they would have had a different story if they'd offered an improved performance package, engines and winglets.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15749 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12447 times:

Quoting nycdave (Reply 3):
Just not really borne out by the order log -- other than 3 years, 1988-1990, Boeing never got more than around 50 orders/year for them. Orders only "dried up" in 2002/2003 when the whole industry was in a slump post-9/11.

You should look at the deliveries too. Boeing built up a backlog and worked their way through it and that was it. Deliveries were dropping steadily from 1999 on. The backlog ran out and nobody wanted any more, and therefore the line closed.



Quoting nycdave (Reply 3):
The 767 doesn't sell any better (though I understand the KC bid does give a good reason to keep that line open regardless).

The 767 line has been turning out around 10 planes a year pretty steadily since 2004, and they still have a backlog of around 40 planes. You can bet that when that runs out the line will end.

Quoting nycdave (Reply 3):
Over 1000 units were sold... it's really hard to objectively say it was a commercial failure,

I never said it was a commercial failure.

Quoting nycdave (Reply 3):
Well then, what would you suggest to fill that niche?

That's the airlines' problem. But if you think that a manufacturer is going to spend $10 billion dollars building a plane that is excessively heavy for the majority of routes, you need to come back to the real world.

The best airlines can hope for is a derivative of whatever the next all new narrowbodies are. Like I said, two combos of wing and landing gear and three to four fuselage lengths. Just mix and match as necessary to get the plane that's needed, and probably a heavier and larger wing in combination with a middling to smaller fuselage will get close to 757 range if the market really wants it that badly, but it won't be without cost. You could probably justify a wing and landing gear for the niche of high performance narrowbody, but not likely an all new plane.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
Not particularly passenger friendly, especially the -300,

It was very airline friendly, and that's a lot of what counts. Even widespread hatred for RJs dissuaded airlines much.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 12037 times:

Quoting nycdave (Reply 5):
I disagree with the idea that most of the 757 TATL markets can support high frequency on the widebodies -- I think if that were the case, you'd see that in action.

You do. Even a relatively thin route like Seattle-London supports a daily widebody. Tons of east-coast US cities support a daily widebody. To get down to the level where you can just fill a 757 but nothing else, you get into some pretty obscure pairs, like Philadelphia-Dublin.

Tom.


User currently offlineCharlieNoble From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11819 times:

Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
and not terribly efficient by current measures

Funny how times change. I clearly remember as a kid seeing a TV commercial for the "Boeing Seven Five Seven" as the announcer called it...highlighting how fuel efficient the jet was!


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3527 posts, RR: 67
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11747 times:

Quoting CharlieNoble (Reply 8):
Funny how times change. I clearly remember as a kid seeing a TV commercial for the "Boeing Seven Five Seven" as the announcer called it...highlighting how fuel efficient the jet was!

It was the first single aisle airplane with high bypass ratio engines.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlinebaguy From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 546 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11719 times:

Quoting CharlieNoble (Reply 8):
"Boeing Seven Five Seven"

Do you meant as opposed to "Boeing Seven Fifty Seven"? Because over here (and most other countries that I have been to with the exception of the US) that is how it is said! Funny how two people can look at the same thing and see differently - like "Two Thousand and Ten" and "Twenty Ten" I suppose!

BAguy


User currently onlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3099 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11685 times:

Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
I'm just puzzled by those who think it was/is a bad design that has no need for a replacement.

Are you kidding? The 757 is one of the best airplanes ever build, the 777 notwithstanding. When they were doing PD work leading up to the 787, even now they have trouble designing something as efficient as the 757.

It's probably the most versitile plane ever built - everything from taking off from a short runway like SNA for a trans-con, or a high altitude airport like LPB or EGE with excellent performance.

It's also a very solidly built and reliable airplane. There has never been a 757 accident that was the fault of the airplane. The very few accidents were either crew error, maintenance error or 9/11.

I work with people who used to be line pilots. They say the 757 outperforms the A321 by a long shot (one of my colleagues who used to fly for USAir and flew both the A32x series and 757/767 very unaffectionatly calls the A321 a "pig" for it's underpowered performance, but loved the 757).


User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4491 posts, RR: 21
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11639 times:

Quoting baguy (Reply 10):
Do you meant as opposed to "Boeing Seven Fifty Seven"? Because over here (and most other countries that I have been to with the exception of the US) that is how it is said! Funny how two people can look at the same thing and see differently - like "Two Thousand and Ten" and "Twenty Ten" I suppose!

Both are acceptable. In fact, I know a few people at Boeing and they refer to all the programs by individual number, (seven four seven, seven six seven, seven eight seven)--except the 777, which they call the Triple Seven. I don't know if it's a company-wide thing or not, but everyone I know at Boeing refers to them that way.



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11539 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 11):
It's probably the most versitile plane ever built - everything from taking off from a short runway like SNA for a trans-con, or a high altitude airport like LPB or EGE with excellent performance.

I have nothing against the plane, it's very good looking and versatile and all that, but you don't see a lot of them in places where you would expect that hot & high performance to come in handy. You see that with US airlines, but in South America they have seen limited use (less so in its early years). Same with Mexico.

Now maybe it was just the bad economy at the time, with less flights and less destinations, thus smaller fleets. Then today we have an older frame combined with high fuel costs, meaning TAM and LAN couldn't justify it especially with the increased performance of 737NGs & A320s.

I just think it's odd we don't see more of them in South America. Seems like the perfect geography & population distribution for it.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11456 times:

Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
I've seen a fair number of comments slagging the 757

In fairness, I don't believe I have ever seen comments on here slagging the 757. I stand to be corrected of course, and I'd be most interested in reading them if you could point in their direction.

Quoting nycdave (Reply 3):
Just not really borne out by the order log -- other than 3 years, 1988-1990, Boeing never got more than around 50 orders/year for them. Orders only "dried up" in 2002/2003 when the whole industry was in a slump post-9/11. The 767 doesn't sell any better (though I understand the KC bid does give a good reason to keep that line open regardless). Over 1000 units were sold... it's really hard to objectively say it was a commercial failure, or it's order levels had dropped off in any meaningful way.

Sorry, but I get the impression that you are ignoring facts to bolster your argument. The reality is airlines didn't want it and stopped it.......whether you agree with that is completely irrelevant but it is they who decide and Boeing knew this when they ceased production. Who has ever stated that it was a commercial failure? The 767 played a completely different role/mission and you cannot compare the two as you are doing.

Quoting nycdave (Reply 3):
TATL may be a niche, but it's a pretty big one, and a pretty profitable one that airlines have found demand for point-to-point and high-frequency service in.

Sorry, but it's not a pretty big one at all. I feel you are forgetting that, whilst it is a niche TATL aircraft now, it was designed or intended for that purpose. Such arose when US carriers were desperate for revenue and decided to try it that way.......before then they had no time for it, nor considered it, in that particular role. Indeed, where is 'high frequency' element in using it TATL? The reality is, as good as the 757 was, it is gone and irrespective of whatever nostalgia.case is attempted, it is not coming back any more than the Constellation or 707 is. The airlines simply didn't want it any more. To my knowledge the plans/tooling has all been destroyed and Boeing are simply not going to 're-invent something that airlines do not want, or need.


User currently offlineTP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 260 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11376 times:

The success of the 757-200 (914 units built in 22 years) should be measured against the success of the plane it was supposed to replace, the 727-200 (1259 units built in 17 years).

In an age of booming air traffic the 757 should have outsold the aircraft it was supposed to replace, instead it ended up coming 300 hundred units short of its predecessor.

[Edited 2010-12-20 09:45:02]

User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6559 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11281 times:

Quoting TP313 (Reply 15):
The success of the 757-200 (914 units built) should be measured against the success of the plane it was supposed to replace, the 727-200 (1259 units built).

The 757 instead replaced the 707 and DC-8 on domestic U.S. routes. Boeing didn't really offer a true 722 replacement until they announced the 738; the A320 was the only truly suitable replacement for several years.

Of course, AS replaced their 722s with 734s, and DL initially wanted to replace their 722s with MD-90s, which never became a reality due to initial reliability problems with the MD-90, and thus DL cancelled their remaining MD-90 orders in favor of the 738.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinegingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 893 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11068 times:

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 12):
Both are acceptable. In fact, I know a few people at Boeing and they refer to all the programs by individual number, (seven four seven, seven six seven, seven eight seven)--except the 777, which they call the Triple Seven. I don't know if it's a company-wide thing or not, but everyone I know at Boeing refers to them that way.

I must say me and my family have always referred to Boeing aircraft by the individual numbers such as seven five seven etc.
In fact, whenever I listen to UK ATC I've only ever heard them referred to as seven five seven & triple seven.



Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12482 posts, RR: 34
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10957 times:

Quoting nycdave (Thread starter):
Although arguably a poor replacement for the 727, and not terribly efficient by current measures (not to mention never a favorite of passengers stuck in the back rows when it comes time to deplane), it seems like, especially since the introduction of the blended winglets, it's really carved out a very successful niche -- one both A and B seem to be aiming for. After all, both the A320 series and the B737s have been stretched to the point where they're just a notch in capacity smaller than the 752, and both are aiming for TATL range.

Let's look at the two types together: the 727-200 carried about 150 pax in a two class layout (around 170 or so - can't remember - in a single class layout) ... the 757 carries around 180 (give or take) in a two class layout and over 220 in a high density Economy layout. Fuel burn? The 727 burned around 4t an hour; the 757? Around 3 (very ballpark numbers, I know, but it's fair to say that the 757 was a tad more economical than the 722). What could the 727 do that the 757 couldn't? Nothing. No matter what way you look at it, the 757 was a superb aircraft. Look at the takeoff performance; look at the way it opened up airports like SNA, for example, which had short runways and very demanding noise regulations.

It really was a superb machine and I think that there is no greater testament to the aircraft now than the fact that airlines are having difficulty finding one type to replace it; only the 321 comes close in terms of capacity, but lacks the legs and is certainly not a t/a aircraft; only the 739ER has the potential to replace it on t/a routes.

I had an uncle who used to work for NWA; he worked on all narrowbody types, but he loved the 757 most. The crews loved them too and I am pretty sure the bean counters did too.


User currently offlineTP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 260 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10958 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 16):

If we compare the commercial success of the most relevant (historically) short/medium haul narrowbody aircraft families: 727, 737, 757, DC-9 (MD80/90) and A320, the 757 is the worst performer. Sure it is no failure, as Trident or Mercure were, but it was a modest success (comparing with other short/medium haul narrowbody aircraft).

[Edited 2010-12-20 10:00:42]

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3577 posts, RR: 27
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10735 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Truly a great airplane.. fun from the day we started releasing the contracts for components, through test and production and post delivery support.. never worked on a plane that was as much fun. Then there is flying on it... there is a sense that one is flying, not riding in a cushioned cattle car. As to it's production run, it met it's market which wasn't that large and then there were no new sales.. as someone said .. if it was the right plane, you had it, if it wasn't you had something else. These a/c will be in the after market for years. South America might have been a market later, but the 737 growth was there for that plus the associated commonalities.

User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10605 times:

I wonder if Boeing would consider a larger wing variant to offer 757 capacity/range when it offers an all new 737 replacement.

User currently offlineGiancavia From Vatican City, joined Feb 2010, 1384 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10525 times:

Love the 757 my fav plane. Growing up watching Monarch and Britannia churn them out of Luton.. the noise .. how quickly they could get off the runway... Good ole days!

User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10404 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting nycdave (Reply 5):
I disagree with the idea that most of the 757 TATL markets can support high frequency on the widebodies -- I think if that were the case, you'd see that in action.

A market that can support multiple wide-bodies, does. That's why it doesn't seem like we see it in action. Because it's right in front of us.

As Tom said:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 7):
You do. Even a relatively thin route like Seattle-London supports a daily widebody. Tons of east-coast US cities support a daily widebody. To get down to the level where you can just fill a 757 but nothing else, you get into some pretty obscure pairs, like Philadelphia-Dublin.

For example, EWR-GVA and EWR-ZRH were both 757 routes to begin with. AA's JFK-ZRH may also be a 757 on a seasonal basis, though I'm not 100% sure. All 3 of them now run 767s (-200 and -400 for CO, and -300 for AA) with frequent replacements to 777s. Take a look at a market like NYC-MUC, which was a secondary market for a long time to FRA's frequencies. There are multiple daily LH A330s and A340s from JFK and EWR and CO has a 767-200 flying the route now, when it was originally a 757. Hamburg now has a daily 757 from EWR, and that market didn't even exist a couple of decades ago. CO has really made beautiful use of its 757 on TATL routes, and it's the obscure city pairs (who would have thought, 20 years ago, that flights (multiple daily in some cases) between EWR-GLA, EWR-SNN, EWR-DUB, EWR-EDI, EWR-Belfast, EWR-Bristol, EWR-MAN, and EWR-Birmingham would all be year-round routes??

The 757 has opened up the ability to explore new markets and spark growth and interest.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineworks4boeing From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 10242 times:

The 757 was significantly more expensive to buy than 737. When we saw the first 739 come down the line, we all knew it was the death of the 757. It could carry almost the same number of passenger, but cost millions less. We had a lot of meetings where the topic of discussion was centered around getting the cost out of building that airplane. We never go close to meeting the targets, so it wound up being uncompetitive from a purchase price standpoint. That's what killed it.

25 Post contains images CharlieNoble : LOL...I grew up outside New York, NY (ok, New Yawk) and we referred at that time to the 757's predecessors as "seventwennyseven", "seventirtyseven" a
26 Post contains images CharlieNoble : Very interesting...was the higher cost simply because it was larger (more materials, bigger engines), or was the "new" 739 line set up more efficient
27 SolarFlyer22 : Yeah, it does well in hot and high conditions as well and I personally like it. I think if Boeing had lightened it, perhaps re-engined it and offer wi
28 Denver11 : The best takeoffs you'll ever have are on a 757 out of SNA, like being on a rocket.
29 n9801f : Yes, I share your sentiment. The 757 seemed to get off to a slow start in 1982 or so, and some of the first customers (AA) didn't follow through on p
30 bikerthai : LOL, the 739 is built on same line as the other 737. Since many parts and process common across the 737 line, you get volume discounts when ordering
31 RG787 : I grew up having to go to GRU whenever I wanted to go outside of my country. After the 757 got winglets, I have two options of flights to the US direc
32 lofty : Should have been on the last BA Flying Start 757 flight did not start at the end of the runway and was in the air by the Police station I have never s
33 nycdave : Exactly, that's kind of my point (and the one that a few people are missing) -- it pretty much opened up several niches that were never forseen when
34 AADC10 : Production of the 757 ended because its market was taken away by the 737 and A320 series and by the ending of the 767 line, with which it shared commo
35 OldAeroGuy : When the 757 was in the design phase (1976-1980), TATL flights were not a design parameter. Remember, this was pre-ETOPS. Our biggest concerns were t
36 Post contains links and images N62NA : I agree - an excellent safety record! Just flew on this one yesterday EWR-MIA: View Large View MediumPhoto © Tsuyoshi Hayasaki - AroundWorldImages D
37 alwaysontherun : Huh?? That is one of the most liked planes here on A.net, or so it seems!! I personally don´t like the looks………it´s too high on its wheels--&
38 MCOflyer : Very true. They do not call it the pocket rocket for a reason. It is very sleek and sexy. I'd fly on one any day and it would be different experience
39 nycdave : I meant getting slagged as a dinosaur that there will not be/is no need for replacing... that it's a plane which doesn't make sense for carriers to o
40 faro : There must be umpteen thread on a.net on this fantasy resurrection theme: I never cease to be amazed by the number of people who consistently hope an
41 fanofjets : I recall those early TV ads, my favorite being where they show derelict DC-8s at Mojave and then pan to the 757 (however you want to pronounce it) in
42 BMI727 : Well, the 757 has aged a lot better. Elvis just got fat.
43 JTR : Best takeoff roll you'll ever be on is a 757 at full throttle.
44 Post contains images PPVRA : Maybe we should wait until we know more about Y1, then see if it can be stretched into a 757-8
45 tdscanuck : Tooling, yes. Plans, no. You can't destroy the plans while the thing is still in service...you need them to provide customer support. Tom.
46 nycdave : That's basically what I'm guessing will happen with the Y-1 and the A320 replacement series. Boeing has basically done all they can to stretch the 73
47 CharlieNoble : "Don't Be Cruel..." I agree that the 757 was an amazing achievement...hard to believe it entered service in 1983!
48 NicoEDDF : I don't really know where you want to go with your arguments. At the moment, exactly nobody is stretching and/or expanding their narrowbodies. And no
49 Post contains images nycdave : If A and B weren't constantly stretching the range and size of the 737/A320, you wouldn't be able to say: That's my point that you weren't sure of. M
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...
What Is The Youngest 757 In The USA? posted Mon Apr 27 2009 08:31:10 by 727LOVER
What Was Going On W/ The UA 757 @ EWR On Saturday posted Sat Jun 14 2008 22:36:56 by B727fan
Thomas Cook And The Boeing 757 posted Tue Sep 11 2007 20:17:29 by Jwb2
Deltas Seating Config On The New 757's posted Fri Aug 24 2007 21:31:05 by JKJ777
The 757 Is The End Of Inflight Trans Atl Service posted Sat Jun 9 2007 20:20:45 by WetleaseWill
Has DL Converted All The Song 757's? posted Sun Nov 26 2006 17:18:53 by Evan767
Success Of The 777-300ER posted Tue Nov 21 2006 14:36:44 by NYC777
India & The Boeing 757 posted Thu Sep 14 2006 20:19:46 by Kiramakora
What Is On The Nose Of This 757? (Photo) posted Tue Sep 5 2006 16:17:46 by United787
What's Going On With The TW 757's? posted Tue Aug 22 2006 17:11:27 by DeltaGuy767