virage wrote:

Here's my armchair CEO offer for Boeing product line up:

- 757 next-gen (will easily accommodate LEAP and future engines)
- 767 next-gen (love how light that frame is)
- 787
- 777X

Simple and relatively inexpensive. Comments?

I agree with your list, bar one; remove the 767.

I guess that is why we are not the board members of Boeing or we’d loose our jobs.

oceanvikram wrote:

virage wrote:

Here's my armchair CEO offer for Boeing product line up:

- 757 next-gen (will easily accommodate LEAP and future engines)
- 767 next-gen (love how light that frame is)
- 787
- 777X

Simple and relatively inexpensive. Comments?

I agree with your list, bar one; remove the 767.

I guess that is why we are not the board members of Boeing or we’d loose our jobs. :D :lol: :lol: :lol:

The 757 has already been fully replaced by the A321 a this point. It’s short field performance isn’t really needed so much anymore. There is no need for a new 757. If they want to do an FSA then they can make one that competes with the A321 and that’s all they need.

The list would make a lot more sense if the 767 was left and the 757 was removed as the 757 has no supply chain, is not as relevant of an aircraft, and has a direct replacement. The 767 is still in production, does not have a direct replacement, and is a more relevant aircraft today.

767333ER wrote:

oceanvikram wrote:

virage wrote:

Here's my armchair CEO offer for Boeing product line up:

- 757 next-gen (will easily accommodate LEAP and future engines)
- 767 next-gen (love how light that frame is)
- 787
- 777X

Simple and relatively inexpensive. Comments?

I agree with your list, bar one; remove the 767.

I guess that is why we are not the board members of Boeing or we’d loose our jobs.

The 757 has already been fully replaced by the A321 a this point. It’s short field performance isn’t really needed so much anymore. There is no need for a new 757. If they want to do an FSA then they can make one that competes with the A321 and that’s all they need.

The list would make a lot more sense if the 767 was left and the 757 was removed as the 757 has no supply chain, is not as relevant of an aircraft, and has a direct replacement. The 767 is still in production, does not have a direct replacement, and is a more relevant aircraft today.

I would have thought the 787 is the replacement for 767. As a customer I would with 787 rather than 767neo. Maybe that is why I am an armchair ceo.

oceanvikram wrote:

767333ER wrote:

oceanvikram wrote:

I agree with your list, bar one; remove the 767.

I guess that is why we are not the board members of Boeing or we’d loose our jobs.

The 757 has already been fully replaced by the A321 a this point. It’s short field performance isn’t really needed so much anymore. There is no need for a new 757. If they want to do an FSA then they can make one that competes with the A321 and that’s all they need.

The list would make a lot more sense if the 767 was left and the 757 was removed as the 757 has no supply chain, is not as relevant of an aircraft, and has a direct replacement. The 767 is still in production, does not have a direct replacement, and is a more relevant aircraft today.

I would have thought the 787 is the replacement for 767. As a customer I would with 787 rather than 767neo. Maybe that is why I am an armchair ceo.

Airlines like United have mad it clear that the 787 sits in a difference size/payload class than the 767 and is not a replacement. On the other hand the A321 does everything the 757 did aside from the couple of short filed missions and A319s are doing that now with the oh so popular increased frequency.

I cannot believe how this thread has so many posts on it. It was a clear troll by the OP.

RJMAZ wrote:

Boeing is on track to have the perfect lineup.

Yes, that’s what people were saying in 2004 - project yellowstone was going to put three all-new frames on the market in the space of eight years. All would use the ‘revolutionary’ CFRP fuselage barrels. Boeing was going to change the way planes are manufactured for ever.

Y2 became the 787 midsized plane launched in 2004, to be followed in 2012 by Y1 (the 737 replacement) and finally Y3 (the 777 replacement) would appear in 2016. Boeing only needed four years from launch to EIS. The hype was mega and the Boeing fans lapped it up - Airbus couldn’t possibly compete and would be history.

Despite the 787’s sales success, reality has fallen a very long way short of that dream.

767333ER wrote:

The 757 has already been fully replaced by the A321 at this point.

Weellllllllllll, techically not fully. There is the 753 to consider.

The line up should have been:

B737MAX8
B737MAX10

B787-8 Regional
B787-8
B787-9
B787-10ER
B787-11

This probably the most logical moves they could do.

tommy1808 wrote:

Reverse engineering is usually much more work than from scratch.

How long did it take wind turbine manufacturers to figure how to dimension bearings, build the wings, towers...?
And you believe a company who tries to copy a wind turbine will have more work?

tommy1808 wrote:

If you get your hands on a wind turbine to copy it, it can only tell you what it has to look like in operation. It doesn't tell you how surfaces where hardened, not what tolerances you need to achieve for it to work reliably or how much extra material needs to be there to account for run in wear.

Best regards
Thomas

I would simply ask a bearing manufacturer to sell me a bearing of same quality and dimensions and I would measure the tolerances.

There may be areas where it is not so easy. Neither Russia nor China can copy Western turbines with the same level of reliability. But these are exceptions.

I believe plane manufacturers after the Comet had a rather easy job in designing the right windows.

Could the E195E2 be redesigned with a wider (5 or 6 abreast) fuselage?

That seems like it would give an easy entrance into the short haul 100-150 pax market to compete with A220.

mikejepp wrote:

Could the E195E2 be redesigned with a wider (5 or 6 abreast) fuselage?

That seems like it would give an easy entrance into the short haul 100-150 pax market to compete with A220.

If you design a new fuselage, yeah easy.....

















no it's not that easy, that would mean a new plane

mikejepp wrote:

Could the E195E2 be redesigned with a wider (5 or 6 abreast) fuselage?

That seems like it would give an easy entrance into the short haul 100-150 pax market to compete with A220.

It would be really hard. Because when you increase the size of the aircraft (length or width) the mass of the plane increase at a different rate.
It would be extremely complicated and resulted in expensive changes to the design which would alter the way it flies.

They can't really compete with A220 especially with those heavy metal fuselage of theirs. Maybe using more composite materials would be a wiser choice.

PC12Fan wrote:

767333ER wrote:

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.

PC12Fan wrote:

767333ER wrote:

The 757 has already been fully replaced by the A321 at this point.

Weellllllllllll, techically not fully. There is the 753 to consider.

While I do agree that B757-300 sits in a really nice capacity. It's not a big seller for many of reasons.

The fuselage is soo long that it took a really long time for passengers to board the aircraft. The long fuselage like A340-600 makes it less optimum for performance. It also doesn't have enough range and capability.

virage wrote:

planecane wrote:

Please stop with the 757. The program was shut down and it would be far from simple or relatively inexpensive to produce it again. It would also be too heavy.

Why 'too heavy'? The 757's fuselage is the same as the 737.
Converting the 737 line in Renton to 757, and stuffing 737 electronics into the 757 cockpit shouldn't be too difficult.

Yes and the way the 60 year old fuselage was desiged it adds more weight as it gets longer to hold the structure.

virage wrote:

Thanks for the feedback on my idea.
I still maintain that the proposed line up is optimal for serving the current and upcoming passenger capacities while not costing an arm and a leg to develop.

Except for the 757 that would kill the cost due to having to be completely rebuilt from the ground up. There is no cast incentive for that one. Barbara Eden Cannot cross he arms and blink the rigs back into existance.

virage wrote:

reltney wrote:

virage wrote:

Here's my armchair CEO offer for Boeing product line up:

- 757 next-gen (will easily accommodate LEAP and future engines)
- 767 next-gen (love how light that frame is)
- 787
- 777X

Simple and relatively inexpensive. Comments?

Love.. 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.

The narrow body fuselage is all the same. SW did not want the 757 cockpit on their 737 NGs and that doomed the fleet commonality angle. Lots to talk about.

To those who ridiculed my assertion that 737 and 757 have the same fuselage, please read realtney's comment quoted above.
Ditto those who pretended to know more than they do and claimed that 757 tooling was gone.

Assuming you're not just trolling (70/30 you are), your consistent problem is that you seem to think an out of the box 757NEO would be competitive with the 321N. You keep ignoring that the big issue with the 757 was the weight, which is driven by the wings. Yes, they give great performance in terms of fuel capacity and runway performance. But if you're not flying near the edge of the range envelope or off a particularly short runway, they're just a huge amount of extra weight. For those missions (the bulk of them), a 321N would blow the 757N out of the water.

To think of it otherwise, ask yourself this: why did Boeing choose to re-engine and update the 737 platform multiple times, pushing it ever closer to the 757 mission profile, when it could have updated the 757 instead? The answer will still be the same: the 737 and A320 (especially A321) can do almost all of what a 757 does for a lot cheaper than a 757 does it. That wouldn't change by NEOing a 757. You'd still be left with a plane that would be better than the larger 737s and 321 at only two things: the edge of the range envelope and the CASM monster of the -300, which would probably sell better than 55 copies this time around, but hardly enough to justify the cost of the updates.

And if you choose to take the plunge and re-wing it, you'd basically just be hoping to make a short-range 753 that would be amazing on costs but not have a ton of range and a...well, basically a 321NEO out of the 752 length.

afterburner wrote:

virage wrote:

Why 'too heavy'? The 757's fuselage is the same as the 737.

I believe only the diameter is similar.

The Boeing 757 is one strange plane and to me one of the disgraces flying around. The fuselage is not the same forward and aft of the wing. Forward it makes use of a 737 "diameter", aft it is a 707 "diameter", therefore giving her a fat behind. The B727 was built the same way, only that No.2 engine makes this look really good on the 727, but on the 757??? This is also the reason that a 757 is always a bit of a pain to the eye, whereas an A321 or Tu-204 look more balanced.

Interestingly, most here on Anet don't know about the two diameters on a 757. Die-cast models seem to all show this though!

IADCA wrote:

Assuming you're not just trolling (70/30 you are), your consistent problem is that you seem to think an out of the box 757NEO would be competitive with the 321N. You keep ignoring that the big issue with the 757 was the weight, which is driven by the wings. Yes, they give great performance in terms of fuel capacity and runway performance. But if you're not flying near the edge of the range envelope or off a particularly short runway, they're just a huge amount of extra weight. For those missions (the bulk of them), a 321N would blow the 757N out of the water.

To think of it otherwise, ask yourself this: why did Boeing choose to re-engine and update the 737 platform multiple times, pushing it ever closer to the 757 mission profile, when it could have updated the 757 instead? The answer will still be the same: the 737 and A320 (especially A321) can do almost all of what a 757 does for a lot cheaper than a 757 does it. That wouldn't change by NEOing a 757. You'd still be left with a plane that would be better than the larger 737s and 321 at only two things: the edge of the range envelope and the CASM monster of the -300, which would probably sell better than 55 copies this time around, but hardly enough to justify the cost of the updates.

And if you choose to take the plunge and re-wing it, you'd basically just be hoping to make a short-range 753 that would be amazing on costs but not have a ton of range and a...well, basically a 321NEO out of the 752 length.

I am not trolling. This is an aviation enthusiast forum, not some sort of pedestrian interest board.

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. 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.

As to the 757's advantages, others and I have listed them already. The obvious one is the ability to accommodate LEAP and the next gen engines.

At the end of the day, the market needs products with 757 and 767-like parameters. Why not just build those and sell for not much money? Those platforms were created by Boeing's best engineers and (pre-MBA craze) managers. They offered a unique combination of true engineering genius, superb flyability and manageable costs. They can still both save and make Boeing tons of money and allow it to focus on true aviation innovation that the future will call for sooner rather than later.

Here we go again. Unfortunately, the 757 seems to be immortal with some people here. Thankfully, it’s a tiny group who easily get drowned out by the reality effectively dished out here.

Unfortunately Im afraid that a new Anet-myth is born. Boeing still has the 757 tooling and will restart production soon because it is enough to just hang new engines on it. #sad

dampfnudel wrote:

Here we go again. Unfortunately, the 757 seems to be immortal with some people here. Thankfully, it’s a tiny group who easily get drowned out by the reality effectively dished out here.

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.

This is like finding a middle-aged woman too old while preferring her mother for her newer clothing.

As we stand now:
The A220 3 may be the best in its niche
The 737MAX 8 may be best in its niche
The 321neo is best in its niche
The 787 9 and 350 9 are best in their niches
777Xs have some excellences, but may be doomed by 2030

Boeing and Airbus both have acceptable competitors in all of the niches.

Airbus is noising about that by 3035 some sort of hybrid will appear. It will appear in the 220/320 size first. Predicting the future is hard, but going out on that limb I see the 797 as the last clean sheet before hybrids appear.

virage wrote:

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.

It’s not that the idea is absurd, but the simple facts that Boeing decommissioned the of the tooling and jigs and there’s no suitable new-gen engine. The other difference with the 737 being refreshed is that it is still in production.

virage wrote:

planecane wrote:

Please stop with the 757. The program was shut down and it would be far from simple or relatively inexpensive to produce it again. It would also be too heavy.

Why 'too heavy'? The 757's fuselage is the same as the 737.
Converting the 737 line in Renton to 757, and stuffing 737 electronics into the 757 cockpit shouldn't be too difficult.

Is someone really suggesting that the 737 electronics get perpetuated?

virage wrote:

Thanks for the feedback on my idea.
I still maintain that the proposed line up is optimal for serving the current and upcoming passenger capacities while not costing an arm and a leg to develop.

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?

virage wrote:

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.

This is like finding a middle-aged woman too old while preferring her mother for her newer clothing.

What if the middle-aged woman is morbidly obese and the mother has a body like Jane Fonda?

9Patch wrote:

virage wrote:

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.

This is like finding a middle-aged woman too old while preferring her mother for her newer clothing.

What if the middle-aged woman is morbidly obese and the mother has a body like Jane Fonda?

No, in the discussed case the woman is a fast-charging athlete, while her mother relies on software to make her body work with the new heart without tipping over and falling on the ground.

virage wrote:

dampfnudel wrote:

Here we go again. Unfortunately, the 757 seems to be immortal with some people here. Thankfully, it’s a tiny group who easily get drowned out by the reality effectively dished out here.

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.

This is like finding a middle-aged woman too old while preferring her mother for her newer clothing.

he's got a point

9Patch wrote:

virage wrote:

9Patch wrote:

What if the middle-aged woman is morbidly obese and the mother has a body like Jane Fonda?

No, in the discussed case the woman is a fast-charging athlete, while her mother relies on software to make her body work with the new heart without tipping over and falling on the ground.

A fast-charging athlete who's dead. I guess that's fine if you're into necrophilia.

So would that make the A320-200 the 30-something year old still hitting on 16 year olds (15 in native France and Germany)?

IADCA wrote:

virage wrote:

reltney wrote:

Love.. 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.

The narrow body fuselage is all the same. SW did not want the 757 cockpit on their 737 NGs and that doomed the fleet commonality angle. Lots to talk about.

To those who ridiculed my assertion that 737 and 757 have the same fuselage, please read realtney's comment quoted above.
Ditto those who pretended to know more than they do and claimed that 757 tooling was gone.

Assuming you're not just trolling (70/30 you are), your consistent problem is that you seem to think an out of the box 757NEO would be competitive with the 321N. You keep ignoring that the big issue with the 757 was the weight, which is driven by the wings. Yes, they give great performance in terms of fuel capacity and runway performance. But if you're not flying near the edge of the range envelope or off a particularly short runway, they're just a huge amount of extra weight. For those missions (the bulk of them), a 321N would blow the 757N out of the water.

To think of it otherwise, ask yourself this: why did Boeing choose to re-engine and update the 737 platform multiple times, pushing it ever closer to the 757 mission profile, when it could have updated the 757 instead? The answer will still be the same: the 737 and A320 (especially A321) can do almost all of what a 757 does for a lot cheaper than a 757 does it. That wouldn't change by NEOing a 757. You'd still be left with a plane that would be better than the larger 737s and 321 at only two things: the edge of the range envelope and the CASM monster of the -300, which would probably sell better than 55 copies this time around, but hardly enough to justify the cost of the updates.

And if you choose to take the plunge and re-wing it, you'd basically just be hoping to make a short-range 753 that would be amazing on costs but not have a ton of range and a...well, basically a 321NEO out of the 752 length.

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. Is it worth to have to pay more for an airframe that can do 100% but you only use 80% of its capability? Not worth the cost. Boeing and Airbus can use the mainstream plane with a few mods and come close. It’s just like you said but I am sure you read the same AWST and ATW articles I do. Not hard to find. Clearly the 757 is overkill doing a LGA PBI run and for that JFK to LAX.. never had to leave a pax behind or cargo.

Best part is when I come into LGA or SNA with windy wet conditions. I know I will stop because of my way slower approach speeds and 8 wheel brakes... when I was flying the 747, my 630000 LB max landing weight had a lower approach speed than a average landing weight 737. Not difficult.

See, I fly the planes and don’t ride in them so I see them from a safer and practical view. From the penny pincher view of the CFO, the 737/321 has a lower bottom line than the higher purchase cost of the 757. Airlines would rather pay less for a plane that can do the flight 80% of the time without restrictions rather than pay mor for a plane that has capacity rarely used. I get it.

I have been a airline pilot for 35 years and an airline mechanic before that plus a short 2 year stint in airline management. Great discussions can be had but I have to call BS when silly things are said like the tooling being destroyed or unequal comparisons. I have flown 5 different manufacturer built airliners and still learning...

Cheers!

reltney wrote:

IADCA wrote:

virage wrote:

To those who ridiculed my assertion that 737 and 757 have the same fuselage, please read realtney's comment quoted above.
Ditto those who pretended to know more than they do and claimed that 757 tooling was gone.

Assuming you're not just trolling (70/30 you are), your consistent problem is that you seem to think an out of the box 757NEO would be competitive with the 321N. You keep ignoring that the big issue with the 757 was the weight, which is driven by the wings. Yes, they give great performance in terms of fuel capacity and runway performance. But if you're not flying near the edge of the range envelope or off a particularly short runway, they're just a huge amount of extra weight. For those missions (the bulk of them), a 321N would blow the 757N out of the water.

To think of it otherwise, ask yourself this: why did Boeing choose to re-engine and update the 737 platform multiple times, pushing it ever closer to the 757 mission profile, when it could have updated the 757 instead? The answer will still be the same: the 737 and A320 (especially A321) can do almost all of what a 757 does for a lot cheaper than a 757 does it. That wouldn't change by NEOing a 757. You'd still be left with a plane that would be better than the larger 737s and 321 at only two things: the edge of the range envelope and the CASM monster of the -300, which would probably sell better than 55 copies this time around, but hardly enough to justify the cost of the updates.

And if you choose to take the plunge and re-wing it, you'd basically just be hoping to make a short-range 753 that would be amazing on costs but not have a ton of range and a...well, basically a 321NEO out of the 752 length.

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. Is it worth to have to pay more for an airframe that can do 100% but you only use 80% of its capability? Not worth the cost. Boeing and Airbus can use the mainstream plane with a few mods and come close. It’s just like you said but I am sure you read the same AWST and ATW articles I do. Not hard to find. Clearly the 757 is overkill doing a LGA PBI run and for that JFK to LAX.. never had to leave a pax behind or cargo.

Best part is when I come into LGA or SNA with windy wet conditions. I know I will stop because of my way slower approach speeds and 8 wheel brakes... when I was flying the 747, my 630000 LB max landing weight had a lower approach speed than a average landing weight 737. Not difficult.

See, I fly the planes and don’t ride in them so I see them from a safer and practical view. From the penny pincher view of the CFO, the 737/321 has a lower bottom line than the higher purchase cost of the 757. Airlines would rather pay less for a plane that can do the flight 80% of the time without restrictions rather than pay mor for a plane that has capacity rarely used. I get it.

I have been a airline pilot for 35 years and an airline mechanic before that plus a short 2 year stint in airline management. Great discussions can be had but I have to call BS when silly things are said like the tooling being destroyed or unequal comparisons. I have flown 5 different manufacturer built airliners and still learning...

Cheers!

Wasn't accusing you of trolling - was questioning it as to the other guy. I think we're 100% in agreement. I love the 757 as a passenger and I'll miss it. I fly a lot of thin transatlantic routings to Northern Europe so I still get a number of 757s with both UA and FI (and occasionally even DL). They get me there safely and reliably and I'll be sad to see them go. But I agree with you that there's a lot of unnecessary BS on here sometimes, a lot of emotional attachments clouding judgment.

virage wrote:

dampfnudel wrote:

Here we go again. Unfortunately, the 757 seems to be immortal with some people here. Thankfully, it’s a tiny group who easily get drowned out by the reality effectively dished out here.

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.

This is like finding a middle-aged woman too old while preferring her mother for her newer clothing.

Hey, some of us wish Boeing had ended the 737 line with the NG. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Boeing needs to bring out a narrow-body “787 junior” by the end of the next decade that will outclass whatever Airbus decides to do with the A320/321 and definitely outclass anything Boeing could do with a 757 rehash. I think Boeing will announce it in the next year or two. The “next-gen” 767 will probably be highly appreciated by UPS/FedEx if it becomes reality. I’m okay with that.

Why not this? And the names are in order by size

797 - small to medium plane
787 - medium sized plane
777 - large plane

9Patch wrote:

What if the middle-aged woman is morbidly obese and the mother has a body like Jane Fonda?

You have to work on your attitude:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnIDhjziEOM

I believe part of the disagreement about a B757 Max is about the A321 Neo, LR, XLR or whatever. Most believe the A321 Neo is fine transatlantic and some rather doubt that, including myself.
If we assume either B757 or B767 , but not both, get a new engine, which one to choose?
Considering that B767 has demand as freighter and gives +40% or so capacity increase over A321 the B767 is better.
Actually B797 is needed. But I don't expect managers who save on sensor redundancies to spend money on a clean sheet.

737max8 wrote:

Why not this? And the names are in order by size

797 - small to medium plane
787 - medium sized plane
777 - large plane

Unless boeing would make a really short and chubby version of B797, it would be too big to replace B737MAX8. Which is the best selling one out of all them. It need to be match for match in terms of capacity and capability.

scbriml wrote:

PC12Fan wrote:

767333ER wrote:

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.

ewt340 wrote:

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.

Ty134A wrote:

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.

Ty134A wrote:

Die-cast models seem to all show this though!

Difficult to imagine as even in full scale, that difference is not realistically perceptible.

virage wrote:

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. . .

virage wrote:

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.

virage wrote:

As to the 757's advantages, others and I have listed them already.

Will you list some that are not superseded by the A321?

virage wrote:

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 is not 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.

Revelation wrote:

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.

reltney wrote:

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.

reltney wrote:

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.

reltney wrote:

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. . .

scbriml wrote:

PC12Fan wrote:

767333ER wrote:

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.

I know, I know. I was going after the actual quote in this case. The A321 comes up short in total capacity versus the 753. But your point is true.

737max8 wrote:

Why not this? And the names are in order by size

797 - small to medium plane
787 - medium sized plane
777 - large plane

737 replacement - small plane
797 - medium plane
787 - large plane

The demand for large aircraft is reducing extremely fast. The A380 and the 747 are gone. All of their routes will have to downgauge to 777X sized or smaller. Fast forward another 15 years and it is highly likely the 777X routes will simply get downgauged again to a 787NEO or A350NEO.

So the 777X will probably only have one sales cycle.

ewt340 wrote:

737max8 wrote:

Why not this? And the names are in order by size

797 - small to medium plane
787 - medium sized plane
777 - large plane

Unless boeing would make a really short and chubby version of B797, it would be too big to replace B737MAX8. Which is the best selling one out of all them. It need to be match for match in terms of capacity and capability.

I was thinking maybe 3 797 variants, around 180, 200, 220 seats etc.

We are seeing everyone wants the MAX8 which is already 160-200 depending on config. No demand for MAX7.

737max8 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

737max8 wrote:

Why not this? And the names are in order by size

797 - small to medium plane
787 - medium sized plane
777 - large plane

Unless boeing would make a really short and chubby version of B797, it would be too big to replace B737MAX8. Which is the best selling one out of all them. It need to be match for match in terms of capacity and capability.

I was thinking maybe 3 797 variants, around 180, 200, 220 seats etc.

We are seeing everyone wants the MAX8 which is already 160-200 depending on config. No demand for MAX7.

Hmm, no, you see, the best selling narrow-body now is A320, B737-800 and A321. Their maximum seating are 189 seats and 240 seats respectively (at minimum seat pitch).

Again, if B797 would be a twin-aisle aircraft. How short the fuselage need to be as small as B737-800.

Will Boeing ever allow Embraer to replace the 738 so that Boeing can focus on replacing the 752 and the 763? The MAX 8/9 does not have enough range to replace the 763.

blacksoviet wrote:

Will Boeing ever allow Embraer to replace the 738 so that Boeing can focus on replacing the 752 and the 763? The MAX 8/9 does not have enough range to replace the 763.

I do not believe anyone knows enough to competently answer that for you. But it would certainly be an ideal result. Leave the Heavy Iron to BCA proper, and whatever NSA they put together to Embraer. Just looking at how much volume is expected in that sector, I feel like it would be wise for BCA to leave production (and perhaps design & support) to a region that is somewhat mature -as these things go- and with labor costs far more competitive than what BCA utilizes in the PNW & SC.

So there is that. . .

ewt340 wrote:

B787-8 Regional

They already offered that, as the 783... it flopped.

PHLspecial wrote:

My armchair answer. I don't see the 757 Max happening because of the development cost and plus they have the 737 Max 9/10.

They may "have the 737 Max 9/10" but few will board it if and when it gets "fixed" so no one should boast about the MAX at this point. This makes the 757 suggestions worth exploration at the very least.

LAX772LR wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

B787-8 Regional

They already offered that, as the 783... it flopped.

B787-8 semi regional

This Forbes article confirms that the 757 is the kind of plane that Boeing needs in its line up:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardaboulafia/2019/12/06/united-airbus-boeing-a321xlr-nma/#72911d0f39e8.

virage wrote:

This Forbes article confirms that the 757 is the kind of plane that Boeing needs in its line up:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardaboulafia/2019/12/06/united-airbus-boeing-a321xlr-nma/#72911d0f39e8.

But that doesn't mean that it will happen. The Airbus 300 and 310 would fit in between the 320 and 330, but that doesn't mean that they will suddenly restart their production, for example.