Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
1989worstyear
Topic Author
Posts: 887
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Why were the 757 and 767 such dead-end designs?

Tue May 29, 2018 12:24 pm

Lufthansa wrote:
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.


Your point? The A320 came out only five years later and has only changed at the wingtips, and AB And the airlines seem plenty fine with that wing 30 years later.

Or does 1988 not count as the 80s due to the rap music :sarcastic:
Last edited by 1989worstyear on Tue May 29, 2018 12:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
NDiesel
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:58 pm

Re: Why were the 757 and 767 such dead-end designs?

Tue May 29, 2018 12:35 pm

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


Pretty sure most of the Icelandair 757s also have the new cockpit screens.
Delta MD-11 JFK-CDG - Upon sunrise I fell in love with aviation
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2638
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

Re: Why were the 757 and 767 such dead-end designs?

Tue May 29, 2018 1:08 pm

Well the A320 was at least designed in the 80s not the 70s. There were huge advances in computing technology in that timeframe, CAD technology was
available, and in many was the A320 was ahead of its time, introducing technologies such as FBW that Boeing didn't introduce until the introduction of the 777.
That being said, if you read what I said earlier.... I pointed out that using the old 757 wing would offer little advantage over the A321. The key here is Boeing NEEDS an an advantage. McDonnell Douglas learnt this the hard way. Today's A320 isn't the latest technology. It does have the latest engines but It could be a lot more. The MD-90 and MD-11 probably would have been successes if the original plans were followed through... which of course required significantly more investment. the MD-11 was to be stretched and get the A330's much more modern wing, and the MD-90 definitely needed a new wing and transcontinental range. Sometimes a half baked effort is just throwing money away, not saving it. It's only worked for the 737 because Airbus didn't feel the need to invest more into the A320. But even the 737 as I pointed out earlier got a new wing. As much as people hold a fond spot for the 757, it takes more than just new engines for a design that old. even the 748 got a revised wing. To suggest the 757s 1970s designed wing will do kind of is laughable. The A330 isn't using the A300s wing!
 
ckfred
Posts: 5185
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

Re: Why were the 757 and 767 such dead-end designs?

Tue May 29, 2018 2:34 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
The 757 was a dead end because it was designed to do things that aren’t needed in great quantity any more. The 757 has a big wing and powerful engines because it was meant to replace the 727-200 for smaller airports with shorter runways. In the 1970s there were many airports with runways 5-8,000ft. This hot shot capability was useful until runways were extended. Nowadays runways are long enough and smaller airplanes can efficiently operate from smaller airports. All that extra capability makes the plane too heavy and burn too much fuel.

It is a whole lot easier to make a effectively grow a smaller plane than shrink a bigger plane. The 757 wing is 50% larger than the A320/737 families. The 757 died because the market for it shrunk when smaller airplanes that are more efficient displaced it.


While the 737 and A320 can do what the 757 does, in terms of range and passenger capacity, they can't match the 757's cargo capacity. A friend of mine, who was a 757/767 F/O for 14 years and a 738 captain for 9 years, tells me how the 757 can carry far more cargo than the 737-800 or 737-900.

By the same token, when you do have a short runway, a very hot day, or high altitude, the performance of the 757 is vastly superior. If you notice, AA now has the A319 working the ski resort routes, because the A320/321 and the 738 don't have the climb performance of the 757.

My friend tells me that he prefers landing the 757 over the 738. The 757 lands slower (to reduce the possibility of a tail strike in the 738), because of the extra wheels on the main gear, has more braking power, as well as reverse thrust. That particularly comes in handy when a runway is wet.

It all goes back to the fact that the 757 was supposed to be the 727-200 replacement, at around 150 seats. Eastern talked Boeing into stretching the 757 to a seating capacity of 180 to 190 seats. Sales were kind of slow, until airlines realized that they could get a plane that could replace the 707 or DC-8 in terms of seats, yet could land at airports like MDW, DCA, or SNA.
 
2175301
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Why were the 757 and 767 such dead-end designs?

Tue May 29, 2018 4:52 pm

I would not call the 757/767 dead end designs... They were transitional designs.

An improvement in what was before... and now generally surpassed, although they still have a niche (and the 767 is still in production for that niche). They sold quite well for their time - and were not economic or market failures.

Newer designed aircraft and newer operating structures (regulated to unregulated, etc) changed the market and their replacements generally better fit the newer market.

Have a great day,
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 558
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Why were the 757 and 767 such dead-end designs?

Tue May 29, 2018 10:05 pm

re: 757 line being shut down. Looking at the market conditions that were present at the time, even if orders had trickled back for the 753, they would never have paid enough to keep the line profitable. By that time, the 737-800 was performing 90% of the missions that the 752 could perform, and only lacked range. Few if any 752s were really running missions that outranged the 738 at the time, and there wasn't much demand for long and thin routes to drive orders for the 752. The 753 may have collected a few more orders just given it's odd-ball size and economics as compared to the closest market offerings, but it certainly wasn't going to have enough volume to keep the line moving fast enough to turn a profit.

There is one and only one possible lifeline for the 757 at that time, and that's if Boeing had chosen to put the money into the 757 program that they put into the 748. What would have been the result? Higher transaction prices for the A-380 as it would have had no competition on the top end, more money for Airbus to fund back into development for its other programs, including a likely competitor to the 757 in a possible A-322 that would have further eroded sales for the 753. There weren't markedly better engines out there in the size that the 757 needed. Weight savings would have come from a new wing, but its unlikely they would have even touched the fuselage, so the weight savings would have been minimal anyway.

And, in the end, Boeing likely made far more profit from whatever they used the space from the 757 program for in that timeframe.

I like the 757 a lot, but, its time in the market had come and gone. Boeing did the right thing, especially knowing what they knew during that era.
 
User avatar
Asturias
Posts: 1977
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:32 am

Re: Why were the 757 and 767 such dead-end designs?

Tue May 29, 2018 11:26 pm

I flew on a 25 year old 752 earlier this spring, and it was awesome! Still had the original interiors (but with new seats) and in beautiful condition (FI naturally, who else)

I'm firmly in the camp, that Boeing should have continued developing the 757 line.
Tonight we fly
 
Boof02671
Posts: 2099
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Why were the 757 and 767 such dead-end designs?

Tue May 29, 2018 11:52 pm

Boeing is in the business of making money by selling planes, the 757 wasn’t selling that’s why it was shut down.

It’s about business, not some Anetter’s desire about liking a certain plane design.

But hey you all know better than the people running Boeing.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Why were the 757 and 767 such dead-end designs?

Wed May 30, 2018 3:07 am

Boof02671 wrote:
Boeing is in the business of making money by selling planes, the 757 wasn’t selling that’s why it was shut down.

It’s about business, not some Anetter’s desire about liking a certain plane design.

But hey you all know better than the people running Boeing.


We have the benefit of hindsight. Boeing has a MoM program running that targets the 757\767 class of aircraft. Due to a lack of a 757 the A321 is eating Boeings lunch right now. The 757 needed a NG or Max program. But with the economic crash and 9-11 happening. Air travel was hurting. A 757 was the odd man out. I wonder if 9-11 didn't happen if the 757 program would had seen new life with a MAX like program.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4221
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Why were the 757 and 767 such dead-end designs?

Wed May 30, 2018 3:49 am

Bring back the Silver Cloud. Never been a car like it. (sarcasm)
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos