Airliners.net

Reading the United 767 replacement thread, the myriad discussions of the 757, and various proposals for what MOM should be, I can't help but think that we all might be overthinking this.

Why doesn't Boeing simply do a 757 and 767 MAX? New engines, new cockpit common with 787, factory wingtip devices and other aerodynamic updates, and some targeted weight reduction.

I know, I know, there aren't engines in the right power class and the 757 tooling has been destroyed. But you'll need new engines and new tooling for a clean sheet MOM anyway.

A new 757-200 (757MAX8 let's say) would sell to American carriers looking for a long range, high capacity, or high performance narrowbody. Yes, the presence of the A321 reduces the need for such an aircraft on shorter routes, but it would handily beat even the neoLR in range, allowing thin routes deep into Europe and South America, and would be ideal for TGU and SXM, DEN and PHX to Hawaii, LGA, MDW, and DCA, and the ski cities. I wouldn't expect the Big 3 to pick up a couple hundred a piece as before, but a couple hundred together seems viable. If B6 or AS wishes to go further afield, the 757 would seem to be a logical next step. There's of course an opportunity with Icelandair, European charter carriers, and for scattered other international sales, and maybe a steal of HA from the A321? Down the line, FedEx and UPS would presumably turn over their fleets as well.

A new 757-300 (757MAX9) would sell to at least DL and UA, which seem to adore their 753s for leisure routes, as well as to the same European charter carriers, fulfilling a similar role. Based on what I've read about airline reaction to the type, I'd think they'd take the opportunity to buy more than they did the first time around.

A new 767-200 would seem not to be warranted.

A new 767-300 (767MAX8) would fulfill the need that AA, DL, and UA seem to have for a small widebody that's lower cost, lower weight, and lower risk than a 787, for the Atlantic, South America, and Japan. The existing 763 also remains the go to aircraft for smaller airlines looking to get into the long haul game at lowest possible risk and cost. Currently if you're going new, that's a 788 or a 338, and that's a lot of aircraft. This also would be an option for a hypothetical long haul operation by B6 or AS (or even WN or FR). If geopolitical shifts are going to reduce long haul travel, maybe even an option for the Atlantic networks of the European Big 3 to downshift without widespread route or frequency reductions. Finally, I know the Japanese have fallen hard for the 787, but potentially there might be a role for this aircraft on shorter routes, rather than abusing Dreamliners?

A new 767-400 (767MAX9) may also be a strong seller. Presumably, the MAX update would bring this aircraft to or past the range and to or below the weight of the 763ER, making the extra capacity essentially free vis-a-vis 763s being replaced? I don't know. I'm also not sure of whether the 764 is beloved or simply liked by DL and UA.

This whole exercise would be vastly less expensive than a clean sheet exercise, while rather nicely fulfilling the slots newer aircraft haven't effectively replaced. Rather than arguing over whether MOM should be a narrowbody or a widebody, the answer is both, just as it was the first time.

A few years down the line, the 757 nose and fuselage cross section could be used as the basis for the NSA. With new empennage and more appropriate fuselage lengths and engines, Boeing could offer cockpit commonality across its entire lineup, and 757-767-style systems and parts commonality from the smallest 737 replacement to the 769MAX.

Thoughts? Comments? Criticisms?

oh no. not another "BRING BACK THE 757 IT WAS THE GREATEST THING EVER" thread.

For the 757 at least, the tooling is gone, and for both planes, they would be, from my understanding, quite heavy by modern standards.

While both retooling for the 757 and a new engine for the 757/767 would be lower cost than a clean sheet.... That does not mean it would be overall economical and cost effective. I just don't see the 767 ever coming back. There is a slight possibility on the 767 because it is still in production mainly for cargo. A right sized new engine is likely in the $1.5 Billion range; so the engine manufactures probably would need to be confident of at selling engines for at least several hundred aircraft. Would a reengined 767 get several hundred orders? I'm not so sure about that. Yes it's easy to see 100 and perhaps 150 orders. Beyond that is a streach for me; and both Boeing and the Engine Mfrs are likely only interested if they saw a market of 300 aircraft.

Have a great day,

If I'm understanding what you wrote, you're basically saying why doesn't Boeing just do an update of the 757 and 767 using 787 technology and new engine available now right?

2175301 wrote:

While both retooling for the 757 and a new engine for the 757/767 would be lower cost than a clean sheet.... That does not mean it would be overall economical and cost effective. I just don't see the 767 ever coming back. There is a slight possibility on the 767 because it is still in production mainly for cargo. A right sized new engine is likely in the $1.5 Billion range; so the engine manufactures probably would need to be confident of at selling engines for at least several hundred aircraft. Would a reengined 767 get several hundred orders? I'm not so sure about that. Yes it's easy to see 100 and perhaps 150 orders. Beyond that is a streach for me; and both Boeing and the Engine Mfrs are likely only interested if they saw a market of 300 aircraft.

Have a great day,

I'm actually curious if this hasn't been thought about. Using the 757 and or 767 blue print and thinking "if we were building this plane today, what technological advances could we use to make it THAT much better of an airplane and how far could it take us"

Rookie87 wrote:

2175301 wrote:

While both retooling for the 757 and a new engine for the 757/767 would be lower cost than a clean sheet.... That does not mean it would be overall economical and cost effective. I just don't see the 767 ever coming back. There is a slight possibility on the 767 because it is still in production mainly for cargo. A right sized new engine is likely in the $1.5 Billion range; so the engine manufactures probably would need to be confident of at selling engines for at least several hundred aircraft. Would a reengined 767 get several hundred orders? I'm not so sure about that. Yes it's easy to see 100 and perhaps 150 orders. Beyond that is a streach for me; and both Boeing and the Engine Mfrs are likely only interested if they saw a market of 300 aircraft.

Have a great day,

I'm actually curious if this hasn't been thought about. Using the 757 and or 767 blue print and thinking "if we were building this plane today, what technological advances could we use to make it THAT much better of an airplane and how far could it take us"

It's so obvious an idea I'm sure it's been considered as a thought experiment.
The fact that nothing has come of it says that the results of the exercise were not favorable.

I think it would've been a good idea if Boeing had developed a narrow-body version of the 787 and called it the 797 (or the other way around) in conjunction with the wide-body project. It would've given airlines the 737/757/320 replacement many of them, especially US carriers, now wish they could order from Boeing. Now, when carriers are thinking about replacing their 737/757/320, it's probably the offerings from Airbus that come first into their minds, or even the hope of a CS500 being developed by Bombardier.

Bringing back an old design with new engine and whatever is needed to brush it up is not always the answer, the 757 itself won over a 727-300 that was on the drawing board as an 727-200 upgrade with two new technology engines but it failed to attract the interest required and they went with the 757, so I think it has to be a clean sheet design but still a decade away till the full potential of the A321neoLR is explored.

The problem here is that many airlines who wanted a 757 replacement aircraft have already ordered the A321. AA, for example, has a sizable fleet of them now. The Thomas Cook Group is undergoing the same process. Even companies in the past, like IB, decided to purchase the A321 to replace some of or all of their 757s. Boeing should have been designing a new MOM plane when this phenomenon began. What's most likely now is a completely new aircraft, and it will most likely be the 797 (in my opinion, obviously).

Boeing needs to develop a NSA aircraft family. That family should also include a variant with more range than the A321LR, in order to address the MOM at the same time.

It will be the last thing Boeing ever does, if they try to resurrect the 757.

2175301 wrote:

While both retooling for the 757 and a new engine for the 757/767 would be lower cost than a clean sheet.... That does not mean it would be overall economical and cost effective. I just don't see the 767 ever coming back. There is a slight possibility on the 767 because it is still in production mainly for cargo. A right sized new engine is likely in the $1.5 Billion range; so the engine manufactures probably would need to be confident of at selling engines for at least several hundred aircraft. Would a reengined 767 get several hundred orders? I'm not so sure about that. Yes it's easy to see 100 and perhaps 150 orders. Beyond that is a streach for me; and both Boeing and the Engine Mfrs are likely only interested if they saw a market of 300 aircraft.

Have a great day,

Well there only other options are a clean sheet and the 787 kinda put a stop to that. Airbus has there reengineered A330 and its cheap and seems to be doing ok and is a ready counter to a clean sheet option from boeing. Honestly the only reason I don't see it working is that boeing hasn't done it yet so there must be something. heck the 737 is looks almost frankenstein like lol. Clean sheet seem out why not some more life to the 767. I guess everyone one says the molds are gone on the 757 for whatever that counts it might be a no go.

You guys have according to every poster on here decided why it can't happen. Has boeing ever answered the question?

Tbh I actually think that there is a market. Sure it'll be expensive as a project but many airlines who want to replace the 757/767 need a similar aircraft. With new tech, the 757/767MAX seems the ideal replacement, and will have a lot of orders if Boeing markets it right.

L.1011 wrote:

Why doesn't Boeing simply do a 757 and 767 MAX? New engines, new cockpit common with 787, factory wingtip devices and other aerodynamic updates, and some targeted weight reduction.

Simple. The business case is not there.
Boeing doesn't make planes to compete with Airbus. Boeing manufacture planes to make money and It cannot be done this way.

Since the A321neo has such a clear advantage compared to any other product in this segment while still demanding a premium, Boeing knows that Airbus could just significant lower the price if they come up with what you suggest, rendering a loss program.
Airbus also has a potential A322 looming which should be significantly cheaper and faster to get to the market than a B757/B767MAX, which IMHO would demand 6 to 7 years. By then most of this segment would already be taken by the A321neo.

So I think Boeing is doing what they can at the moment. A B737-10MAX is the only viable short-term solution, with the launch of NSA and EIS in perhaps 10 years. IMHO If the B737-10MAX doesn't get any traction in the market Boeing will seed this segment to Airbus until then.

35 Old technology and MRO cost. All supplier production lines are gone. Updating all isn't simple or cheap and doesn't produce any competitive.

Of course, it can be done. The tooling can be rebuilt - drawings are somewhere and it should be rebuilt anyway for a cleansheet plane.
For engines, those in 321NEO may be boosted a little more. You lose the spectacular runway performance and will be limited for low and cool airports with long runways - most TATL airports belong to that category. You need some diet to the body anyway.

That would cost more than a couple of billions. The certification is non-trivial if you make two decade's continuous improvements at once. It may have to be certified as a new model without grandfathering rights. If you change the cockpit you can as well change everything else.

My vote goes definitely for a new cleansheet plane. Both 757 and 737 are too old concepts to be redeveloped any more. (They may wait for the political situation to settle down before any decision: it would be very risky to invest under a thread of a global trade war - hence they might fall on some auxiliary solutions like 757NG.)

Though I agree with many that an updated B757/B767 is probably not the way to go, I do think the concept is worth revisiting.
My :
NSA and MOM should be developed side by side offering maintenance, crew and design commonality.
On the system and tech side the aircraft would basically be the same, however with a different (narrow/widebody) fuselage and wings.
See what can be done regarding the engine, two different ones, though with a similar architecture.

This would give Boeing a competitive line up:
NSA-8 ~150 pax, 3100nm
NSA-9 ~190 pax, 2900nm
MOM-8 ~230 pax, 5200nm
MOM-9 ~260 pax, 5000nm
B787-9 290 pax, 7600nm
B787-10 330 pax, 6400nm
B777-8 ~350 pax, 8700nm
B777-9 ~400 pax, 7600nm

(B787-8/A330-900neo not included due lack of recent sales.)
Of which the NSA/MOM has a high commonality and the 777/787 have crew commonality. (plus with the right design a short course between the two)

PHBVF wrote:

Though I agree with many that an updated B757/B767 is probably not the way to go, I do think the concept is worth revisiting.
My :
NSA and MOM should be developed side by side offering maintenance, crew and design commonality.
On the system and tech side the aircraft would basically be the same, however with a different (narrow/widebody) fuselage and wings.
See what can be done regarding the engine, two different ones, though with a similar architecture.

This would give Boeing a competitive line up:
NSA-8 ~150 pax, 3100nm
NSA-9 ~190 pax, 2900nm
MOM-8 ~230 pax, 5200nm
MOM-9 ~260 pax, 5000nm
B787-9 290 pax, 7600nm
B787-10 330 pax, 6400nm
B777-8 ~350 pax, 8700nm
B777-9 ~400 pax, 7600nm

(B787-8/A330-900neo not included due lack of recent sales.)
Of which the NSA/MOM has a high commonality and the 777/787 have crew commonality. (plus with the right design a short course between the two)

Precisely my thoughts exactly. To save on costs, the NSA and MOM should be developed side by side.

Though, I'd bump up the NSA-8 up to 165-175.

I've also been thinking for quite some time along these lines: that there is a big gap between the largest single-aisle planes and the smallest wide-bodied ones. That the Boeing 737 has rather over-reached itself with the -900 series indicates to me that, notwithstanding the -10 proposal, this design has reached its limits; whether the Airbus 321 can be further developed (as opposed to merely refined) is also a moot point. Perhaps in today's somewhat uncertain economic situation, the two main airliner producers do not feel that the expense involved in producing an entirely new aeroplane will be sufficiently recouped in sales.

My opinion on this:

Nothing gets produced here until Boeing figures out how to mass produce a wide, elyptical fuselage that is durable and light weight. Once we're there, you can make a MOM aircraft that isn't prohibitively long, or doesn't have excessive drag for its capacity, and can get the desired range flexibility.

Once Boeing can do that, the market will then be open for a craft that has essentially 767-200/300 seating capacity and range, but close to A321neo economics. As for the 737 market, that will be a market that's compressed on the bottom by the CSX00 and the likely 500, as well as the E-195E2. Boeing will need a round fuselage, lighter weight and to optimize around the 737-9/10 size, with a shortee option for extended range, and a longer option for shorter, high frequency routes.

Both planes could share the same engine FAMILY with the smaller using a reduced power version and the larger one using the top of the range. Sharing the same wing won't work for fuel capacity/structural reasons.

While I still think that a reengined 767-200 that uses the absolute strongest LEAP-1A that they can make would find a market (lighter engine than the original one) for high density regional flying, I don't think that it could sell enough to recoup it's development costs. Though, if also offered as an improved freighter, it just might.

The 767 market space is well bracketed by the A321 and A330ceo/neo. The 300 and 400 are beaten on the top end by the 330 in every way. The conjectural 322 would easily beat the economics of the 200, though might come up short on range. The sell for any reigned 767 will have to be range flexibility.

LightningZ71 wrote:

Both planes could share the same engine FAMILY with the smaller using a reduced power version and the larger one using the top of the range. Sharing the same wing won't work for fuel capacity/structural reasons.

I would argue having two optimised engines is better than one sub optimal and one that is optimised.
Though commonality costs are definitely important in the airliner design equation, the long term effects of fuel efficiency (or rather inefficiency in this case) far outweigh thone effects.

I think a slightly larger 767-200 would be perfectly sized - a 767-8. And a 767-9, sized between the 767-300 and -400. If they use new generation engines, more composites and a 787 style cockpit + avionics + cabin the current 767 could very well be a good platform for this.

I think there is no need for a 757 sized longer range aircraft. Many airlines who want this already upgraded or went A321. Boeing could continue working on a 737-10 at least to meet the 757 capacity wise - I think the range would be enough for 90+% of the 757 flights.

Customers who need the range could very well have a look at the 767-8, which would have a slightly larger capacity but would be much more efficient on the other hand. This would be a great aircraft for the thinner transatlantic routes, without headwind problems in winter (757) or too much capacity (767-300).

2 new aircraft, for the price of 1.3. Every OEM's wet dream. Possible, e.g. A330/340, but those were 80-90% identical, not only on a concept / system level. Same production line, cockpit, cabin, fuselage, tail, wing, etc. Two aircraft with different fuselages, cockpit, wings, engines etc.? Not a chance, maybe 2 for the price of 1.8? 2 For the price of 2 really, unwanted compromises included.

keesje wrote:

35 Old technology and MRO cost. All supplier production lines are gone. Updating all isn't simple or cheap and doesn't produce any competitive.

I love all the info you bring to the forums.
Yes for the 757 but the 767 why couldn't that work like the brilliant move of the updated A330 with its lower costs to counter the smaller end 787's

grbauc wrote:

keesje wrote:

35 Old technology and MRO cost. All supplier production lines are gone. Updating all isn't simple or cheap and doesn't produce any competitive.

I love all the info you bring to the forums.
Yes for the 757 but the 767 why couldn't that work like the brilliant move of the updated A330 with its lower costs to counter the smaller end 787's

An OEM CTO told me in the eighties airframes where produced in a different way. Drawings / blue prints were the base of all. Applied margins, tolerances were based on that. Assembly processes were based on those tolerances / margins. Many specialized people to make everything fit. System integration prior to the digitalization age is even more incomparable.

So to build a 757 you would have to rebuild a 757 supply chain and eighties assembly line, using eighties technology and tools. Most of the original suppliers don't exist anymore, apart from some aftermarket shops.

To make a modern 757, every drawing, including all calculations and certification would have to be redone. Start introducing up to date systems, avionics, materials, assembly processes and an all new aircraft rapidly becomes a good idea..

There is a simple reason for the gap in the market.

You can not really do the 2 class capacity with a single aisle without becoming too long for the bigger version, you can not do it with an 8 abreast design without it being too short for the smaller version. That leaves you with an 7 abreast design, which is the least economic design possible for anything about 50 seats.

L.1011 wrote:

I know, I know, there aren't engines in the right power class and the 757 tooling has been destroyed. But you'll need new engines and new tooling for a clean sheet MOM anyway.

I think you answered your own question right there. Why would Boeing restrict themselves to an old design when it would cost the same amount to do a clean sheet that would be better optimized for today's market anyway?

I think there is or was a space for the so-called MOM. The only problem is that Boeing just doesn't really have the cash or the leeway to a clean sheet right now. In hindsight, it would have been a good idea to pursue the MOM a decade ago when the 757/767 programs were winding down, but who could have foreseen how healthy the U.S. airlines would be? As for Airbus, it's a mix of being happy with the good A321 sales and not really believing that anything else left over is worth chasing after.

767 is the question and its still in production.

I really wonder if Boeing is looking at the absolute bath that Airbus is very likely to take on the 380 and asking themselves if the MOM market is big enough to offset the enormous development costs. Because Boeing can't rely on the government like Airbus. And the 321's formidable position makes the whole proposition a lot shakier I think, DL/AA are all in for the 321, UA likely as well.

I feel like the benefits of commonality between a WB and a NB must be overrated. Boeing gave it a go with the 757/767 program, but have shown no interest in it since. It strikes me as one of those things that looked great on paper, but not so much in real life. Kind of like their outsourcing strategy on the 787.

Edit to add what I forgot to say:
The 767/757 program is old tech now, and not worth reviving. So, the question asked by others already is why didn't Boeing develop a NB counterpart to the 787. And now, the above paragraph has some context.