Seems to me like a lot of missions are being consolidated to the larger 737 and a320 variants, including those of the 757 (Hawaiian routes, transcontinentals, eventually some transatlantics and Caribbean/smaller South American markets like from MIA). You used to see different types fly these missions.

Anything bigger you’d go with an a330.

the 757 was a plane designed in the days of regulated air travel. turn times mattered less, human resources also played less of a role, and never forget the leap the 757 was over other airliners such as the 727 or the DC8, Cconvairs, 707s... and boeing made the plane into a veeeeery long single aisle plane. while efficient during flight, it is a nightmare on the grond and very unflexible. the tourn times are a disgrace on the 757-300, if operated for what it was intended. just imagine loading 200 bags and a few tons of cargo bulk onto this plane... and offloading the same amount. also imagine 260 pax boarding this long and very narrow tube. the a321 features containers and is not that long, so more flexible and basically even made the 753 obsolete with carriers operating them -> condor. it takes 6-8 minutes for 3 workers to fully load an a321 with containers, the same weight and volume would take 6 workers at least 25 minutes on the 752/3, or 737 and bulk airbus 321/0. never forget, even the DC8 had containers for belly loading... and that is some time ago. and that is only one factor... there are others as well. and there is a reason why for example MC-21 with the same dimensions of the 753 would be a much better aircraft, and why airbus won' build an A322.

Both had bellies that were too small for the upcoming cargo business. The 767 just barely missed the LD3 pairing capability of the competition in the lower deck.
The 757, when finally right sized to the become the stretched -300, took to long for turnarounds.
Both were very efficient airplanes however too slow to be mixed alternating with bigger a/c on longer routes within tight schedules.

I don't agree about the definition of "dead-end" design.
767 is still very popular with many airlines, the 300ER was a huge success.
764ER maybe came too close to the 772ER, so many airlines choose the latter, being more modern, and wider.

753 was not a big hit but it is an excellent performer: the carriers who fly the "flying pencil" keep it tight because as for now there is no substitute in terms of performance. You don't see boneyards brimful of 757s, and some 30 years old birds still fly as cargos today (see ex BA birds flying every day for DHL).

My opinion is that 753 and 764 came too late and too early, there was a big surge in travellers in the mid to late 90's, thus demanding bigger planes (752 to 763, A333 and 763 to 772 / 773, A340, maybe also bigger birds such as 747s and A380s) so Boeing had already in mind of shutting down the 757 line; and then due to 9/11 a big crisis, that found major airlines in big troubles with planes too big for the demand and regulations.

Fair to say that the vast number of posts on this thread have misunderstood the OP.

His point is quite simple: why did the 757 and 767 programmes have a far lower ceiling in terms of future development compared to the 737/747/777 programmes.

Though to be fair, certain other posts have addressed this.

727200 wrote:

American 767 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

My take: The 737NG could do much of what the 757 was doing, and the A330 ate the 767 for lunch.

And the A380 ate the 747 for dinner.

Are you serious? A plane that with the exception of a couple of airlines, no one wants. A plane that was late to the market and cost Airbus billions to develop and one they will never recoup their investment in let alone the drain it was to the other marketable aircraft. How many 380's have sold? Now compare it to the 747. Hey tell ya what, I will do the math for you. Airbus has 331 orders. Boeing has built over 1500. Now maybe we are in different time zones, but when your "lunch eater" has only sold 22% of 747 sales, that is one serious diet Airbus is on.
Ate for dinner?

The A380 has sold more in it's ten years of service than the B747 in its first ten years.

Balerit wrote:

727200 wrote:

American 767 wrote:

And the A380 ate the 747 for dinner.

Are you serious? A plane that with the exception of a couple of airlines, no one wants. A plane that was late to the market and cost Airbus billions to develop and one they will never recoup their investment in let alone the drain it was to the other marketable aircraft. How many 380's have sold? Now compare it to the 747. Hey tell ya what, I will do the math for you. Airbus has 331 orders. Boeing has built over 1500. Now maybe we are in different time zones, but when your "lunch eater" has only sold 22% of 747 sales, that is one serious diet Airbus is on.
Ate for dinner?

The A380 has sold more in it's ten years of service than the B747 in its first ten years.

Irrelevant. Air travel market in the early 2000s is immeasurably bigger than in the 1970s

American 767 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

My take: The 737NG could do much of what the 757 was doing, and the A330 ate the 767 for lunch.

And the A380 ate the 747 for dinner.

I wouldn't call the 767 a dead-end design because Boeing is still building it, although no new variants came out lately. Boeing is still selling the 767-300ER as cargo, the ERF variant. The 767 still has a long future ahead as a freighter, and especially as a tanker with the Air Force. Look how long the KC-135 has been flying, I wouldn't be surprised if military 767s remain in service past 2040. Boeing could very well refit the 767 tankers with new power plants in the future, like they refit the KC-135s with CFM-56 power plants.

Base on total sales the A380 did not eat the 747 for lunch. 1544 747's as of April 2018 . So far the A380 has been out for 10 years & 7 months and as of march 2018 they have sold 222. thats 32.1 per year for the 747 & 20.9 per year for the A380. So the 747 outsold it 9.2 per year. What the future for the A380 holds if they can keep it going. Sad if they can't it's a great plane & ride. But truly is one of the least attractive aircraft.

RJMAZ wrote:

The sharp market downturn after 9/11 had a massive effect on the 757-300 and probably the 767-400.

The 757-300 is also structurally inefficient due to being too long and skinny. It is at the capacity where you shouldn't really have an aircraft. Between 250 and 300 seat range in max density it is too many seats for a 6ab aircraft and too few seats to make a 8ab aircraft like the A310.

7ab is just inefficient from a seating area perspective. It is easily beaten by a similar tech and capacity 8ab aircraft. That's why the 767-400 was beaten by the A330-300. The 767 had the medium to long haul small widebody market to itself for nearly a decade which is why it sold well and gained a good reputation. There will never be another 7ab aircraft.

Never say never. and people do like fewer middle seats.

trnswrld wrote:

757 and 767 dead end designs?......are we talking about the same 767 that first flew some 37 years ago and is STILL being produced?!?
IMO these aircraft are not even close to dead end designs because they started the pathway for what is now THE standard in aircraft design.
Your post is a bit confusing to me, but if you are infact just referring to the 753 and 764 only, then well yeah those were much more limited produced. Some say they were too late in the game, and also has to do with them being a request from a specific airline or two.
Boeing could have advanced the 767 as much as they wanted, but then that’s sorta the 787 now isn’t it?

Yes but the 757 is a dead design as it is not only out of production, Boeing has destroyed the 757 specific tooling that differs from the 737.

Just curious, did Boeing ever consider a 757-300F or 767-400F.

How much did the role of CADD play in the story? Boeing made a big deal at the time that the 777 was the first completely CADD designed aircraft, providing significant benefits. Had those brights not been available, world it have been worth getting more out of the drafting work done for the 767?

Was the 757 ever fully digitized and modeled in CADD?

RJMAZ wrote:

7ab is just inefficient from a seating area perspective. It is easily beaten by a similar tech and capacity 8ab aircraft. That's why the 767-400 was beaten by the A330-300. The 767 had the medium to long haul small widebody market to itself for nearly a decade which is why it sold well and gained a good reputation. There will never be another 7ab aircraft.

Well, if you pull up any of the articles out there on Boeing's MOM aircraft, you'll see they're working on a 7-abreast design, so you might want to wait until that design has been firmed up or killed before you make "Never" statements.

When people say Boeing destroyed the 757 tooling, I always imagine some sort of Viking funeral scenario with a large bonfire and fearsome men throwing axes at a flaming 757 carcass. But seriously, what does 'destroying the tooling' actually mean in real terms, and why isn't there an option to 'store the tooling' ? Were Boeing convinced in 2004 that nobody was ever going to buy one ever again or was it even considered that current customers might be happy with their fleets back then, but might want to add new examples in 5-10 years ?

I think that given the popularity of the A321 Boeing may have put the 757 out to pasture to early. In 2004 only one US based airline flew the 321.

OA940 wrote:

Since when do we consider them as failures? Sure the 764 and 753 didn't exactly do well, but the 752 and 762/763 did incredibly for their time period, and in general. The 767 was selling until 2014 and still makes money as a cargo jet, while everyone is rushing to fill the shoes of the 752, a role which didn't exist before it. So, were the 753/764 failures? Yes. But to think the whole program failed you must be very delusional.

I could not agree more.

I know all of us are here for a reason, love for aviation, but when posters (like Miamiport here, as well as many others) pretend to "be experts" and just bluntly criticize "just because" then forums become a laugh, really

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but there should be some degree of common sense when posting.

rbavfan wrote:

American 767 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

My take: The 737NG could do much of what the 757 was doing, and the A330 ate the 767 for lunch.

And the A380 ate the 747 for dinner.

I wouldn't call the 767 a dead-end design because Boeing is still building it, although no new variants came out lately. Boeing is still selling the 767-300ER as cargo, the ERF variant. The 767 still has a long future ahead as a freighter, and especially as a tanker with the Air Force. Look how long the KC-135 has been flying, I wouldn't be surprised if military 767s remain in service past 2040. Boeing could very well refit the 767 tankers with new power plants in the future, like they refit the KC-135s with CFM-56 power plants.

Base on total sales the A380 did not eat the 747 for lunch. 1544 747's as of April 2018 . So far the A380 has been out for 10 years & 7 months and as of march 2018 they have sold 222. thats 32.1 per year for the 747 & 20.9 per year for the A380. So the 747 outsold it 9.2 per year. What the future for the A380 holds if they can keep it going. Sad if they can't it's a great plane & ride. But truly is one of the least attractive aircraft.

Okay I must have used different figures when I checked a while ago but the A380 has entered a market that is saturated but the 747 had no competition, so I think that the A380 has done pretty well considering and maybe in the next ten years it will double that figure.

A sizable number of airlines have ordered in the 321 in the past decade. It’s reasonable to assume an a/c that size is still commercially viable so why wouldn’t Airlines have considered the 757 if it was still in production?

Miamiairport wrote:

A sizable number of airlines have ordered in the 321 in the past decade. It’s reasonable to assume an a/c that size is still commercially viable so why wouldn’t Airlines have considered the 757 if it was still in production?

Because it was too small for long hauls and too big for short hauls

FatCat wrote:

Because it was too small for long hauls

When airlines have been looking for 321LR with even less seats?

too big for short hauls

When airlines are using A330 or 777 for short haul?

And what about mid haul?

NameOmitted wrote:

How much did the role of CADD play in the story? Boeing made a big deal at the time that the 777 was the first completely CADD designed aircraft, providing significant benefits. Had those brights not been available, world it have been worth getting more out of the drafting work done for the 767?

Was the 757 ever fully digitized and modeled in CADD?

I would guess that both the 757 and 767 designs were converted to 3D models prior to the development of the 757-300 and 767-400 in the mid to late 90's. The 777 program had already changed how Boeing designed their aircraft.

Also consider that even back in the 90's Boeing was considering both the 757 and 767 as platforms for military applications. After the Pentagon had to have parts for the A-10 reverse engineered to support the A-10 long term, they required reference designs for all parts for all future military equipment be handed over to the Pentagon. You can bet every part of the KC-46 which is based on the 767 is documented in CADD and 3D models. The 757 was being considered as a replacement for the P-3.

FatCat wrote:

Miamiairport wrote:

A sizable number of airlines have ordered in the 321 in the past decade. It’s reasonable to assume an a/c that size is still commercially viable so why wouldn’t Airlines have considered the 757 if it was still in production?

Because it was too small for long hauls and too big for short hauls

This is the most wrong thing I have come across since ''chocolate on pizza is a great combo''

The Boeing 767-200 entered service in 1982, just a couple of years after the Airbus A300. The latter was the first twin-engined widebody, and the first with two crew members on the flight deck. (The engineer position was removed.) The A300 was in 1983 joined by the A310, a 12 frames shorter derivate (internally known as the A300, variant B10). The 767-200 was joined by a stretched variant in 1986, the 767-300. The 767-200/300 and the A310/A300 are similar sized. Between 1980 and 1992 519 767-200/-300 was delivered. In the same period Airbus delivered 504 A300/310. The 767 was very dominant in the large US market, while the A300 had its success mainly in Europe.

Boeing 767 production peaked in 1992, just 10 years after the first aircraft entered service. That is very early and is comparable to the A380. What happened was the launch of the Airbus A330, a brand new and modern design, a design that built on the same fuselage cross-section as the A300/A310 and lessons learnt. Entry into service for the A330 was in 1994. The A330/A340 duo was the first widebody with a fly-by-wire system.

When all this was happening Boeing was very busy developing the 777, their first aircraft with a fly-by-wire system and the largest twin-engined aircraft ever. The 777 entered service in 1995. Boeing was at this time also starting to feel the pressure from the increased production of the brand new A320.

The 757-200 production peaked in 1992 and production fell to half in just a few years. What happened was the similar sized A321. The A321 entered in service in 1994. The 757 was very popular in the US, while the rest of the world much more quickly adopted the A321. Ten years after the A321 entered service, production of the 757 ended.

So way didn't Boeing significantly upgrade the 767 and 757 at that time (mid 1990s)? The answer is that they were very busy with the 777, but also with the re-wing, re-engine, stretch and significant systems upgrade of the 737. The 737NG entered service in 1997. Boeing would later allocate some resources to the 757 and 767 programs, resulting in the 737-300 in 1999 and the 767-400 in 2000. By that time it was inadequate to just do a simple stretch, and these two variants sold in very few numbers.

In retrospective, I think it was a wise business decision to focus their resources on the 777 and 737 programs, both programs are significant success stories, and 737 production has still not peaked.

OA940 wrote:

Since when do we consider them as failures? Sure the 764 and 753 didn't exactly do well, but the 752 and 762/763 did incredibly for their time period, and in general. The 767 was selling until 2014 and still makes money as a cargo jet, while everyone is rushing to fill the shoes of the 752, a role which didn't exist before it. So, were the 753/764 failures? Yes. But to think the whole program failed you must be very delusional.

The B757-300 and the B767-400 only failed because there was the B777-200 and the B777-200ER out at the same time the B767-400 was in service.
The B757-300? Well? the market had changed and the B767-300 had stolen it's thunder as it was built for a pretty "specialty" type of airline.. It is a good airplane,
But it's just not for everybody. It's an excellent "off peak" Hauler as United used them from ORD-SFO for the late night flight.
They're always full. And I've flown home on enough of them to say they're comfortable.

RJMAZ wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

The 753 was the most-efficient aircraft per pax of its time. Wider means less-aerodynamically-efficient, and two aisles means the thing has to be wider to accomodate the pax. I really don't follow your logic, unless you're saying that pax don't like an aircraft to be that long.

I disagree.

The 757-300 gained significant empty weight percentage wise for a stretch.

Usually a simple stretch like the 787-10 gains 5% empty weight but for 15% more cabin area. Range is sacrificed

A complex stretch like the A350-1000 gains 10% empty weight for 15% more cabin area, the benefit of that extra weight is that range is not sacrificed.

The 757-300 gained weight like a complex stretch but lost range like a simple stretch. Where did all that weight go? Structural efficiency is the answer. Long narrow tubes are easier to bend and need to be much stronger and heavier.

When aircraft efficiency is measured in fractions of a percentage the 757-300 wasn't that great for the range. It's empty weight per passenger wasn't any better than an A321.

My undersatanding is that the 753 had very low CASM. That was it's appeal and selling point.

reidar76 wrote:

The Boeing 767-200 entered service in 1982, just a couple of years after the Airbus A300. The latter was the first twin-engined widebody, and the first with two crew members on the flight deck. (The engineer position was removed.) The A300 was in 1983 joined by the A310, a 12 frames shorter derivate (internally known as the A300, variant B10). The 767-200 was joined by a stretched variant in 1986, the 767-300. The 767-200/300 and the A310/A300 are similar sized. Between 1980 and 1992 519 767-200/-300 was delivered. In the same period Airbus delivered 504 A300/310. The 767 was very dominant in the large US market, while the A300 had its success mainly in Europe.

Boeing 767 production peaked in 1992, just 10 years after the first aircraft entered service. That is very early and is comparable to the A380. What happened was the launch of the Airbus A330, a brand new and modern design, a design that built on the same fuselage cross-section as the A300/A310 and lessons learnt. Entry into service for the A330 was in 1994. The A330/A340 duo was the first widebody with a fly-by-wire system.

When all this was happening Boeing was very busy developing the 777, their first aircraft with a fly-by-wire system and the largest twin-engined aircraft ever. The 777 entered service in 1995. Boeing was at this time also starting to feel the pressure from the increased production of the brand new A320.

The 757-200 production peaked in 1992 and production fell to half in just a few years. What happened was the similar sized A321. The A321 entered in service in 1994. The 757 was very popular in the US, while the rest of the world much more quickly adopted the A321. Ten years after the A321 entered service, production of the 757 ended.

So way didn't Boeing significantly upgrade the 767 and 757 at that time (mid 1990s)? The answer is that they were very busy with the 777, but also with the re-wing, re-engine, stretch and significant systems upgrade of the 737. The 737NG entered service in 1997. Boeing would later allocate some resources to the 757 and 767 programs, resulting in the 737-300 in 1999 and the 767-400 in 2000. By that time it was inadequate to just do a simple stretch, and these two variants sold in very few numbers.

In retrospective, I think it was a wise business decision to focus their resources on the 777 and 737 programs, both programs are significant success stories, and 737 production has still not peaked.

Thank you for your reply. Now, the question still stands. After upgrading the 737, why do you think Boeing decided to just say forget it with the 757 and 767? Or were there upgrades done that we may or may not know about? I’m familiar with the Sky interiors done for the 767 and have a vague recollection of avionics upgrades (maybe) that were also done for the 767, but I don’t remember reading anything similar regarding the 757. Pilots can fly either, so it it safe to assume the same avionics upgrades I vaguely recollect would have applied to the 757 as well?

reidar76 wrote:

The Boeing 767-200 entered service in 1982, just a couple of years after the Airbus A300.

I wouldn't call 8 to 10 years between the debut of both aircraft "just a couple of years".

Rookie87 wrote:

After upgrading the 737, why do you think Boeing decided to just say forget it with the 757 and 767? Or were there upgrades done that we may or may not know about?

After upgrading the 737 to 737NG it was probably to late to do a significant new derivative of the 757 and 767. Should Boeing pursued that strategy, the program should have been launched in the early 1990s, before production peaked for the 757 and 767. The 757-300 (1999) and 767-400 (2000) came to late. Instead Boeing developed the 737-900ER (2006) as a 757 replacement and in 2004 launched the 787 program. At that time the 787 was supposed to be a 767 replacement, so after the 737NG program was completed Boeing had launched the 787.

Apropos, upgrades to the 757/767, I can think of retrofittable blended winglets. I think that was around 2007, an important upgraded that resulted in a life extension of the existing 757/767 fleet, but hasn't really contributed to any new sales.

Balerit wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

The Boeing 767-200 entered service in 1982, just a couple of years after the Airbus A300.

I wouldn't call 8 to 10 years between the debut of both aircraft "just a couple of years".

True Airbus had a few early versions of the A300. I would call those prototypes from a company launching their first aircraft. A300 was significantly changed and the A300 B4 (200/600) entered into service in 1980 and 1983 respectively. Only these aircraft have the same type certificate as the A310.

The 320/737 have probably reached as close to perfection as humans get with regards to useful modals, efficiency, performance, materials etc. Once these two models started increasing in size and performance there was no room left for the 757 to successfully compete. (which is not to say that it does not do a few things better). But the other two do multitude things better.

reidar76 wrote:

Balerit wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

The Boeing 767-200 entered service in 1982, just a couple of years after the Airbus A300.

I wouldn't call 8 to 10 years between the debut of both aircraft "just a couple of years".

True Airbus had a few early versions of the A300. I would call those prototypes from a company launching their first aircraft. A300 was significantly changed and the A300 B4 (200/600) entered into service in 1980 and 1983 respectively. Only these aircraft have the same type certificate as the A310.

Maybe between the A300-600 but we, SAA, operated A300's from 1976 already.

Spacepope wrote:

Bostrom wrote:

1989worstyear wrote:

Looking over old posts about why the 757-300 and 767-400 were commercial failures, it seems like the overall consensus is that these two variants came out too late and were already obsolete in 1999.

Therefore, I can't help to wonder what makes these two variants different from the 737 NG or 747-8, both of which are based on older designs from the 60's/70's. Then of course you have the 777X...

The 747-8 can hardly be called a success as a passenger aircraft.

True, but one could argue it's much more successful than the A380 as a freighter.

It is, but it's not that hard to be more successful than a plane that doesn't exist. And compared to the 777F, the 747-8 is not a huge success.

reidar76 wrote:

The Boeing 767-200 entered service in 1982, just a couple of years after the Airbus A300. The latter was the first twin-engined widebody, and the first with two crew members on the flight deck. (The engineer position was removed.) The A300 was in 1983 joined by the A310, a 12 frames shorter derivate (internally known as the A300, variant B10). The 767-200 was joined by a stretched variant in 1986, the 767-300. The 767-200/300 and the A310/A300 are similar sized. Between 1980 and 1992 519 767-200/-300 was delivered. In the same period Airbus delivered 504 A300/310. The 767 was very dominant in the large US market, while the A300 had its success mainly in Europe.

Boeing 767 production peaked in 1992, just 10 years after the first aircraft entered service. That is very early and is comparable to the A380. What happened was the launch of the Airbus A330, a brand new and modern design, a design that built on the same fuselage cross-section as the A300/A310 and lessons learnt. Entry into service for the A330 was in 1994. The A330/A340 duo was the first widebody with a fly-by-wire system.

When all this was happening Boeing was very busy developing the 777, their first aircraft with a fly-by-wire system and the largest twin-engined aircraft ever. The 777 entered service in 1995. Boeing was at this time also starting to feel the pressure from the increased production of the brand new A320.

The 757-200 production peaked in 1992 and production fell to half in just a few years. What happened was the similar sized A321. The A321 entered in service in 1994. The 757 was very popular in the US, while the rest of the world much more quickly adopted the A321. Ten years after the A321 entered service, production of the 757 ended.

So way didn't Boeing significantly upgrade the 767 and 757 at that time (mid 1990s)? The answer is that they were very busy with the 777, but also with the re-wing, re-engine, stretch and significant systems upgrade of the 737. The 737NG entered service in 1997. Boeing would later allocate some resources to the 757 and 767 programs, resulting in the 737-300 in 1999 and the 767-400 in 2000. By that time it was inadequate to just do a simple stretch, and these two variants sold in very few numbers.

In retrospective, I think it was a wise business decision to focus their resources on the 777 and 737 programs, both programs are significant success stories, and 737 production has still not peaked.

The A320 was already 8 years old in '95 (not "brand new" but new), but otherwise good summary. Really shows how little innovation there was after 1988 - since all these early/mid 90s planes are still the pinnacle 25-30 years later. Gen Xers and Yers need to give our elders in aerospace more credit.

There are lots of reasons why the 757 and 767 could be said to be dead end designs - in the sense that they have not evolved. Whilst selling well Boeing didn't really have much incentive to do much dramatically with the designs. And it should be remembered what else was being worked on.

After the 757/767 Boeing turned to the 737 and came up with the 737-300 (slight stretch on the 737-200), 737-400 (more of a stretch on the 737-200 to match the MD-80/A320) and the 737-500 (to replace the 737-200).

It moved from the 767-200 to stretch it to be the 767-300 and added the ETOPS version. That is where the needs to operate out of LGA and have transcon range meant Boeing had a design it could grow and find a useful (and profitable) niche.

It was then working on the 747-400, which again was a successful working over of the original product.

So by the end of the 1980s we had the 737-300/-400/-500 and 747-400 as successful second generation versions of the original in a catalogue alongside the 757 and 767-200/-300.

Boeing then turned to the cleansheet 777 and again found a platform that was successful and could grow, targeting the L1011, DC-10 and 747-100/-200 replacement market. But then where? It had Airbus with the A320 family slowly eating up sales (look at how a number of major Boeing customers just avoided the 737-400 even if they had ordered the 737-300 and 737-500, e.g. UA, LH, AF). So it launched the 737NG in response and put itself back in the game against the MD-80 and A320. But at the price of starting to eat into the lower end of the 757 market. And in the A321 Airbus was showing it had an aircraft that pretty much matched 757 capacity where you didn't need range.

By the mid-1990s Boeing was trying to cover several "attacks" - the attempt to give the 747 a 777 style makeover (new wings, engines and even a stretch in the 747-500/-600) failed as airlines baulked at the price. Then came the Asian financial crisis that killed a lot of demand for the 747-400 and 9/11 was the nail in the coffin with the massive contraction in the aviation market. Then there was the response to the A330-200 in the 767-400ERX that was again seen as sub-optimal.

The McDonnell Douglas merger wasn't just to give Boeing enhanced defence products. It took the only competitor it could out of the market, making it a straight A v B fight. I'm not saying the MD-11, MD-90 and MD-95 were game changers but the guys down at Long Beach were still able to affect the market.

We then had the Sonic Cruiser that morphed into the 787 - Boeing's response to finding something to sit between the 737NG and the 777 given the way the A330 was building up that market against the 767. Meanwhile the 757 was out on a limb. As others have said, not really able to grow and definitely too heavy to shrink (though if the originally proposed 757-100 had been built what a rocket that would have been!). In a post 9-11 market where was the 757 to find sales? In the 737-800 Boeing had a competitive 727-200ADV replacement to go up against the A320. You had CO, DL and AA all signing the exclusive deals with Boeing (later turned into gentleman's agreements) whilst US, UA and NW had planted themselves in the A319/A320 camp. Nobody was looking to replace their 757s at that time in the US and outside Europe even BA ("Boeing Always") had gone for the A320 family and was fast phasing out its original RB211-535C engined models in favour of new A319/A320 aircraft.

If Boeing was going to do a 757NG it should have done it after the 737NG, but even then was there a market? The US majors were still taking the 757-200 and it takes something good to get an airline to take an upgrade if there isn't really a need. That being said, if there had been a 757NG then it might have survived 9/11 and been able to get sales for TATL operations, but again how big would that market really have been?

The 757 and 767 were (are) good designs but various factors conspired to stop any real second generation products being offered.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

CaptnSnow71 wrote:

Right now, Boeing is wishing they never discontinued the 753. Just because it didn't sell at the time doesn't mean it was obsolete... they are now spending billions developing a replacement.

As for the 767, not sure why you're calling that a failure. Been flying for 37 years and production hasn't ceased. It may not have been as popular or profitable as the A330, but was still a financial success.

They would be spending billions developing some sort of product anyway, unless they wanted to end up like McDonnell Douglas.

Had the 753 been developed 5-10 years earlier, it probably would have sold more units. It had the misfortune of having about half of Continental's order cancelled after 9-11. Still the demand for 757-200's was drying up as the 737NG performed many of the missions previously performed by 757-200's. Prior to the 737NG, the 757 was the only Boeing narrow body that could fly US transcons. As 752 orders dropped off the cliff after 9-11, there wasn't much point in continuing production.

As 737 NG's took over lots of the routes previously flown by 752's, the 752's were either sold off for conversion to freighters or repositioned to fly the longest possible missions on which they still had an advantage. CO converted all its 752's to their international configuration with 16 lie flat business class seats. UA converted its youngest 752's to its PS configuration for premium transcon service to replace 762's it retired after 9-11 and sold off the older 752's. After the UA-CO merger, UA installed 28 of the UA lie flat business class seats on their PS configured 752's.

UA still has numerous older 752s in PS service such as N502UA and N505UA.

Ty134A wrote:

the 757 was a plane designed in the days of regulated air travel. turn times mattered less, human resources also played less of a role, and never forget the leap the 757 was over other airliners such as the 727 or the DC8, Cconvairs, 707s... and boeing made the plane into a veeeeery long single aisle plane. while efficient during flight, it is a nightmare on the grond and very unflexible. the tourn times are a disgrace on the 757-300, if operated for what it was intended. just imagine loading 200 bags and a few tons of cargo bulk onto this plane... and offloading the same amount. also imagine 260 pax boarding this long and very narrow tube. the a321 features containers and is not that long, so more flexible and basically even made the 753 obsolete with carriers operating them -> condor. it takes 6-8 minutes for 3 workers to fully load an a321 with containers, the same weight and volume would take 6 workers at least 25 minutes on the 752/3, or 737 and bulk airbus 321/0. never forget, even the DC8 had containers for belly loading... and that is some time ago. and that is only one factor... there are others as well. and there is a reason why for example MC-21 with the same dimensions of the 753 would be a much better aircraft, and why airbus won' build an A322.

Most of what you're talking about applies to the 753, but not the 752 which is basically A321 size with a bigger wing. If Boeing had upgraded the 752 to accept containers your problems would be fixed. Also the DC-8-61/63 were longer than 753 and airlines didn't complain about them.

FlyCaledonian wrote:

....

If Boeing was going to do a 757NG it should have done it after the 737NG, but even then was there a market? The US majors were still taking the 757-200 and it takes something good to get an airline to take an upgrade if there isn't really a need. That being said, if there had been a 757NG then it might have survived 9/11 and been able to get sales for TATL operations, but again how big would that market really have been?

The 757 and 767 were (are) good designs but various factors conspired to stop any real second generation products being offered.

Considering how big the A321 market is today, perhaps a 757NG as efficient as the A321ceo and a 757MAX as efficient as the A321neo, both with more range, would be very successful indeed.

Rookie87 wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

The Boeing 767-200 entered service in 1982, just a couple of years after the Airbus A300. The latter was the first twin-engined widebody, and the first with two crew members on the flight deck. (The engineer position was removed.) The A300 was in 1983 joined by the A310, a 12 frames shorter derivate (internally known as the A300, variant B10). The 767-200 was joined by a stretched variant in 1986, the 767-300. The 767-200/300 and the A310/A300 are similar sized. Between 1980 and 1992 519 767-200/-300 was delivered. In the same period Airbus delivered 504 A300/310. The 767 was very dominant in the large US market, while the A300 had its success mainly in Europe.

Boeing 767 production peaked in 1992, just 10 years after the first aircraft entered service. That is very early and is comparable to the A380. What happened was the launch of the Airbus A330, a brand new and modern design, a design that built on the same fuselage cross-section as the A300/A310 and lessons learnt. Entry into service for the A330 was in 1994. The A330/A340 duo was the first widebody with a fly-by-wire system.

When all this was happening Boeing was very busy developing the 777, their first aircraft with a fly-by-wire system and the largest twin-engined aircraft ever. The 777 entered service in 1995. Boeing was at this time also starting to feel the pressure from the increased production of the brand new A320.

The 757-200 production peaked in 1992 and production fell to half in just a few years. What happened was the similar sized A321. The A321 entered in service in 1994. The 757 was very popular in the US, while the rest of the world much more quickly adopted the A321. Ten years after the A321 entered service, production of the 757 ended.

So way didn't Boeing significantly upgrade the 767 and 757 at that time (mid 1990s)? The answer is that they were very busy with the 777, but also with the re-wing, re-engine, stretch and significant systems upgrade of the 737. The 737NG entered service in 1997. Boeing would later allocate some resources to the 757 and 767 programs, resulting in the 737-300 in 1999 and the 767-400 in 2000. By that time it was inadequate to just do a simple stretch, and these two variants sold in very few numbers.

In retrospective, I think it was a wise business decision to focus their resources on the 777 and 737 programs, both programs are significant success stories, and 737 production has still not peaked.

Thank you for your reply. Now, the question still stands. After upgrading the 737, why do you think Boeing decided to just say forget it with the 757 and 767? Or were there upgrades done that we may or may not know about? I’m familiar with the Sky interiors done for the 767 and have a vague recollection of avionics upgrades (maybe) that were also done for the 767, but I don’t remember reading anything similar regarding the 757. Pilots can fly either, so it it safe to assume the same avionics upgrades I vaguely recollect would have applied to the 757 as well?

AA 757s have the cockpit screen upgrades. I don't know which other airlines have these.

Balerit wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

American 767 wrote:

And the A380 ate the 747 for dinner.

I wouldn't call the 767 a dead-end design because Boeing is still building it, although no new variants came out lately. Boeing is still selling the 767-300ER as cargo, the ERF variant. The 767 still has a long future ahead as a freighter, and especially as a tanker with the Air Force. Look how long the KC-135 has been flying, I wouldn't be surprised if military 767s remain in service past 2040. Boeing could very well refit the 767 tankers with new power plants in the future, like they refit the KC-135s with CFM-56 power plants.

Base on total sales the A380 did not eat the 747 for lunch. 1544 747's as of April 2018 . So far the A380 has been out for 10 years & 7 months and as of march 2018 they have sold 222. thats 32.1 per year for the 747 & 20.9 per year for the A380. So the 747 outsold it 9.2 per year. What the future for the A380 holds if they can keep it going. Sad if they can't it's a great plane & ride. But truly is one of the least attractive aircraft.

Okay I must have used different figures when I checked a while ago but the A380 has entered a market that is saturated but the 747 had no competition, so I think that the A380 has done pretty well considering and maybe in the next ten years it will double that figure.

Who is going to buy 200 more 380's? There is a finite number of destinations for EK to send it. Aside from high volume niche market (like LHR), it's too much aircraft for even some destinations it's already flying. As for other airlines, the 380 isn't exactly flying off the shelf. If they hit 300 built, it's about the best one can hope for.

The B764 and the B753 were designed for specific markets and customers (mostly americans) so boeing knew at the time that those aircraft will have a very short life

the 757 both 200 and the sleek stretched 300 are 2 of my favorite aircraft to fly to this day. I do not consider the 300 variant to be a bad design. Its comfortable with large below deck holds and maximizes passengers. Those engines are just beasts making both variants still the best for takeoff and really the entire flight from my point of view.

reidar76 wrote:

Rookie87 wrote:

After upgrading the 737, why do you think Boeing decided to just say forget it with the 757 and 767? Or were there upgrades done that we may or may not know about?

After upgrading the 737 to 737NG it was probably to late to do a significant new derivative of the 757 and 767. Should Boeing pursued that strategy, the program should have been launched in the early 1990s, before production peaked for the 757 and 767. The 757-300 (1999) and 767-400 (2000) came to late. Instead Boeing developed the 737-900ER (2006) as a 757 replacement and in 2004 launched the 787 program. At that time the 787 was supposed to be a 767 replacement, so after the 737NG program was completed Boeing had launched the 787.

Apropos, upgrades to the 757/767, I can think of retrofittable blended winglets. I think that was around 2007, an important upgraded that resulted in a life extension of the existing 757/767 fleet, but hasn't really contributed to any new sales.

I really appreciate your reply! Thank you.

LAX772LR wrote:

Max Q wrote:

The 757 program was terminated prematurely, no question despite their being a temporary lull in orders

You call 7 aircraft ordered, in the span of more than 3yrs, "a temporary lull"..??

Shareholders would call that a completely unjustifiable waste of resources.

Max Q wrote:

It’s ironic that the 757 line was shuttered just a few years before the wave of new interest in an aircraft of its size capable of
operating longer thin routes

...which does not actually translate into carriers wanting 757s, as there were plenty of fully capable examples able to fly for two more decades, readily available but untaken.

Max Q wrote:

Closing down the 757 line was Boeing’s biggest commercial mistake, period

No, repeating that absurd statement as if it were remotely fact, is a mistake.

I don’t always agree with LAX777LR, but he is spot on in his response. We go over this over and over and over on A.net.

The 757 is one of the best airplanes ever designed.

Repeat after me: Boeing shut down the 757 line because it wasn’t selling and there were no prospects for future sales.

This went on for several years too. Boeing tried hard to drum up orders. They just weren’t there.

Also both the 757 and 767 have sold over 1000 each. I’d hardly call that a dead end or a failure.

LAX772LR wrote:

Max Q wrote:

The 757 program was terminated prematurely, no question despite their being a temporary lull in orders

You call 7 aircraft ordered, in the span of more than 3yrs, "a temporary lull"..??

Shareholders would call that a completely unjustifiable waste of resources.

Max Q wrote:

It’s ironic that the 757 line was shuttered just a few years before the wave of new interest in an aircraft of its size capable of
operating longer thin routes

...which does not actually translate into carriers wanting 757s, as there were plenty of fully capable examples able to fly for two more decades, readily available but untaken.

Max Q wrote:

Closing down the 757 line was Boeing’s biggest commercial mistake, period

No, repeating that absurd statement as if it were remotely fact, is a mistake.

I don’t always agree with LAX777LR, but he is spot on in his response. We go over this over and over and over on A.net.

The 757 is one of the best airplanes ever designed.

Repeat after me: Boeing shut down the 757 line because it wasn’t selling and there were no prospects for future sales.

This went on for several years too. Boeing tried hard to drum up orders. They just weren’t there.

Also both the 757 and 767 have sold over 1000 each. I’d hardly call that a dead end or a failure.

No question shutting down the 757 line was a mistake, lack of orders or not at the time
Customers would have returned


Keeping the line open at a very low production rate or literally with no orders
for a couple of years would still be more efficient and save billions compared to the cost of developing an entirely new ‘MOM’
aircraft that Boeing could otherwise put off
for decades longer

Max Q wrote:

No question shutting down the 757 line was a mistake, lack of orders or not at the time
Customers would have returned


Keeping the line open at a very low production rate or literally with no orders
for a couple of years would still be more efficient and save billions compared to the cost of developing an entirely new ‘MOM’
aircraft that Boeing could otherwise put off
for decades longer

No it wouldn't, keeping a production line open for a jet that is not producing orders is a waste of valuable land, labor and resources that is more efficiently used elsewhere. The 757 was already been delivered for 23 years when it stopped at 2005. That's 12 years longer than the A380 has been accepting deliveries. It'd be a monumentally pigheaded move for Airbus to keep the line open to 2030 (23 years) just for some nebulous expectation of future demand, and the same applies to the 757.

BoeingGuy wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Max Q wrote:

The 757 program was terminated prematurely, no question despite their being a temporary lull in orders

You call 7 aircraft ordered, in the span of more than 3yrs, "a temporary lull"..??

Shareholders would call that a completely unjustifiable waste of resources.

Max Q wrote:

It’s ironic that the 757 line was shuttered just a few years before the wave of new interest in an aircraft of its size capable of
operating longer thin routes

...which does not actually translate into carriers wanting 757s, as there were plenty of fully capable examples able to fly for two more decades, readily available but untaken.

Max Q wrote:

Closing down the 757 line was Boeing’s biggest commercial mistake, period

No, repeating that absurd statement as if it were remotely fact, is a mistake.

I don’t always agree with LAX777LR, but he is spot on in his response. We go over this over and over and over on A.net.

The 757 is one of the best airplanes ever designed.

Repeat after me: Boeing shut down the 757 line because it wasn’t selling and there were no prospects for future sales.

This went on for several years too. Boeing tried hard to drum up orders. They just weren’t there.

Also both the 757 and 767 have sold over 1000 each. I’d hardly call that a dead end or a failure.

Especially considering the 757 and 767 shared the same systems. For the manufacturers of those systems, it's like a program with 2,000+ sales. The commonality between programs effectively increased the ecomies of scale. It also meant a common group of pilots could fly both aircraft. This increased the incentive to buy both aircraft.

757 and 767? the 757 always had bad timing but I think the world can agree it served US carriers well on longer routes or from high altitude airports (DEN and SLC I'm looking at you... amazing it didn't end up in JNB for that reason). And the 767... it just couldn't compete with the A330. the 332 id an amazingly unique aircraft. It performs well on 2 hr or 12 hr missions. on short routes it gets off short runways easily with a heavy load. This was one aircraft Airbus got right and its success ironically is its own worst enemy today... the A330 CEO's economics still add up. Boeing could have done a warmed over Next Gen version.... although they botched the program initially their thinking was they needed a newer design to fully take advantage of new technologies. I think you never saw a 788 and saw a second generation 767, the A330 classic would probably still be whipping it. We didn't see a second generation of the 707 or 727 either. Lastly the 787 was easting up so much cash... it would have been irresponsible for Boeing to start developing both of these lines further when they were bleeding money fixing 787 stuff ups from subcontractors. They had committed to that program so it was essential they made it work... too many airlines had signed on and it would have lost them pretty much all credibility if that wasn't their immediate focus. Things don't happen in isolation.

Max Q wrote:

No question shutting down the 757 line was a mistake, lack of orders or not at the time
Customers would have returned


Keeping the line open at a very low production rate or literally with no orders
for a couple of years would still be more efficient and save billions compared to the cost of developing an entirely new ‘MOM’
aircraft that Boeing could otherwise put off
for decades longer

Hmmm not so sure about that. First of all it would have needed a complete new wing, and new engines. But if we really want to take some weight
out of it and address the modern markets concerns we'd need to look at drastically increasing the use of composites over metal.... in other words...
these changes are so huge you are basically designing a new aircraft and you're certainly looking at a different production process/tooling line, negating
any saving made keeping the line open. the only real advantage the 757 could offer over the a321LR is the ability to have the stretched version. however I wouldn't
be surprised if Boeing does look at a long single isle plane. Look to Asia for hints. This is where they're gonna need to sell it. Think something scoot can fit 250 pax in and
fly low cost from Singapore to Taipei. To really make this work though this airplane MUST be light per pax. and medium sized sectors the turn around doesn't matter so much.

Lufthansa wrote:

Max Q wrote:

No question shutting down the 757 line was a mistake, lack of orders or not at the time
Customers would have returned


Keeping the line open at a very low production rate or literally with no orders
for a couple of years would still be more efficient and save billions compared to the cost of developing an entirely new ‘MOM’
aircraft that Boeing could otherwise put off
for decades longer

Hmmm not so sure about that. First of all it would have needed a complete new wing, and new engines. But if we really want to take some weight
out of it and address the modern markets concerns we'd need to look at drastically increasing the use of composites over metal.... in other words...
these changes are so huge you are basically designing a new aircraft and you're certainly looking at a different production process/tooling line, negating
any saving made keeping the line open. the only real advantage the 757 could offer over the a321LR is the ability to have the stretched version. however I wouldn't
be surprised if Boeing does look at a long single isle plane. Look to Asia for hints. This is where they're gonna need to sell it. Think something scoot can fit 250 pax in and
fly low cost from Singapore to Taipei. To really make this work though this airplane MUST be light per pax. and medium sized sectors the turn around doesn't matter so much.

The 757 certainly didn’t need a new wing,
but RR and / or P&W could have significantly improved the fuel burn on their respective engines


That, combined with a 2000 USG stabilizer fuel tank, modernized cockpit, cabin and increased use of composites would have seen it through 2030 or longer easily


A next generation 200/ 300 series would have fit fit the MOM requirement very well at a fraction of any new aircraft development cost

Boeing needed the space at Renton to seriously beef up the 737 rate. That alone made it worth to shut down the 757 line. Plus: No more orders coming even with the -300 or longer range variants.

The 757 didn't need a new wing?

I'd beg to differ. Buy installing a new wing, they could use new materials and take a lot of weight out like the CS series has.
Aircraft are generally in production a long time. So in order to future proof the aircraft it really needs to be as advanced as possible.
As for the increased use of composites... (apart from the wing already discussed) you're really looking at the fuselage. A composite fuselage means complete retooling.... aka a new production line. A warmed over 757 of course would offer performance improvements over the current stock. But would it really offer too many advantages over the A321LR?

Don't forget that when the 757 entered service in 1983 (and remember it was developed before that) there was no such thing as a mobile phone network in North America, (Japan was just getting started with the bricks) no such thing as a CD, computers had giant floppy disks and green or orange monotone screens, people used typewriters with actual ribbons in them, boarding passes were hand written in a lot of countries, fillings were made from metals, people used 35mm fuji or Kodak film, cars had carburettors nobody had even heard of fuel injection and the 757 was replacing things in Europe such as the Hawker Siddely Trident. By the mid 1990s it was obvious the 737 needed a new wing. It got one and that turned out to be a very good investment for Boeing ,easily paying for itself. But to think what is an even older wing (in terms of age now) than when the 737 got one, and we know live in an age where most of us carry around more computing power in our pockets than used on the space program back then... you have to be kidding if you don't think we can't design and built a significantly more efficient wing now.

RJMAZ wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

Did you want to back this up with gals/pax-mile or lbs/pax-mile on a typical route? Compared to say a 767 of its time?

Empty weight per passenger is the best metric to compare short haul CASM.

Let's compare all three at 28" pitch full economy.
737-900ER - 44600kg 215 passengers = 206kg per pas
A321CEO - 48,500kg 236 passengers = 205kg per pas
757-300 - 64300kg 280 passengers = 229kg per pas

The whole bigger wing argument doesn't apply. Wing loadgings
737-900ER - 85T 124m2 = 684kg per m2
A321CEO - 93.5T 122m2 = 766kg per m2
757-300 - 123T 185m2 = 664kg per m2

The 737-900ER wing loading is very close to the 757 long range cruise would overtake much.

The 757-200 is the one with the big wing and great long range fuel burn not the 757-300.

A 737-900ER could probably do an extra flight per day due to the quicker turn around times. This complete offsets the capacity difference.

It's known that the 757-300 is one of the most efficient planes out there in terms of CASM and people moving. Even today, there is nothing that can touch it. Also, it does not hold 280 people.