The 757 has already been fully replaced by the A321 at this point.
Weellllllllllll, techically not fully. There is the 753 to consider.
All 55 of them? I doubt Airbus is worried about replacing those.
Indeed. The A338 is pretty close to the 753 on operational costs. And it can be made to have the same capacity, or essentially free
additional capacity if it suits. And even then, I do not believe we will see 55 of those made.
The fuselage is soo long that it took a really long time for passengers to board the aircraft.
Not really. It does take longer than an A319 or E190. But an efficiently run operation, boarding at the L2, will not be perceptibly longer than a 739. Or the upcoming MAX10. Or a high density A321NEO. The latter, in some cases, has more seats than any 753 operator. That is what counts for boarding times.
The Boeing 757 is one strange plane and to me one of the disgraces flying around.
Ehm... I think I heard someone breaking a beer bottle. You should probably run.
Die-cast models seem to all show this though!
Difficult to imagine as even in full scale, that difference is not realistically perceptible.
As to your question, why Boeing dragged the 737 along all these years, I am not sure. Could be a number of reasons from poor management decisions to failing to anticipate market fragmentation to not expecting the need to do another reengine.
It was an inexpensive plane to design & produce and airlines were buying lots of them. Not exactly a BBC Murder Mystery there. . .
But most likely is this: they have discontinued the 757 too early, and of course restarting production is more involved and expensive than modding an active product.
No. If that was an issue, the line would never have started in the first place.
What is not being perceived correctly is that it really does not matter what those costs are -and they are overstated to highly dramatic effect, just to be clear-; what does matter is that the cost involved does not eclipse the revenue potential as seen by mgmt.
That aspect of the involved finances actually mirrors aircraft design somewhat, namely that if you are lifting a lot of weight, add more power and wing area, right?
If your costs to produce are high, this is fine so long as you have the revenue to lift your product above that. Now you know this.
As to the 757's advantages, others and I have listed them already.
Will you list some that are not superseded by the A321?
How come people find the idea of a modernized 757 absurd, while being perfectly fine with the modernized 737? Why is it that the 757 is "obsolete" and the 737 not? The 757 is much more future-proof with respect to passenger capacities and engine technologies.
I do actually consider the 757/767 families to be more fundamentally
modern aircraft than the 737 family. It is worth noting that the flight deck went all the way out to the latest 777 iteration, as did many systems and systems architecture. This will certainly outlive any realistic 737 production timelines. FWIW. . .
That being said, it is not a question of whether the 757 is obsolete so much as it is that it is too much
airplane for its mission profile. What can a 'fiver do that a 321LR cannot?
Modernizing it could
be done. But the certification and design costs (no, tooling
an issue) would be prohibitive. Keep in that the FAA will also be less forgiving with GF'ing designs like those butterfly doors and cable redundancies.
And it would still not be significantly advantageous to the A321 or 788 to make it worth the capital.
That is the conclusion BCA have long since reached and why they will not do this.
And suggesting that FAA would accept a reboot of a production line that has been shut down for 15 years without insisting on a full recertification?
Yes, that would be required. But even if production gap were not an issue, I do not see how they would be able to put a theoretical 758 to production without that anyway. New engines, wing, etc would drive that all by themselves.
just did a tour 2 months ago at Boeing. 757 tooling is still available contrary to what rumors say. In fact the 747SP tooling is still on property according to Bob Johnson who gave the tour. Tooling gets stored, not destroyed. Well, says Boeing, but what do they know.
Indeed it is. I do not know where that Stupid Rumor came from, but it has an admirable persistence. My theory is that either someone just thought it sounded cool and made for a story, or -and I feel that this is more likely- someone starting floating that as an excuse, since that is how it is always couched. The latter allows people who believe that to ignore the reality that the 757 -perhaps somewhat early for a Boeing Design- was no longer competitive.
In any case, I find it astonishing that anyone can believe that would present a valid obstacle if it were
true. As though the tooling were designed by DaVinci himself and handed to BCA for a one-time use. SMH.
Not trolling at all but I know it hard to tell with some on here. You said it exactly as Boeing does.. the 737/321 can ALMOST do the 757 job yet the 757 cost more to produce. Common knowledge. AWST did a great piece on that. The times you would need to lift to the limits of the 757 is few.
Not only that, but in the 757's case, the times you need the limits of its ability are book-ended by other -usually more operationally efficient- products.
Great discussions can be had but I have to call BS when silly things are said like the tooling being destroyed or unequal comparisons. Cheers!
Yep. Apart form this posting, I have actually giving up correcting that particularly ridiculous trope. You can show people dated photos of the stuff being in ready-storage, and they will still insist that is has been destroyed. What can you do?
Beliefs and superstitions are important to people, I guess. . .