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?

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.

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.

virage wrote:

- 767 next-gen (love how light that frame is)?

not enough benefit at current and likely future fuel prices.

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.

aside of the 757 tooling being long gone, it still has the large, heavy, and only useful in niche applications, wing on it. You are looking at some 20.000 pound extra weight vs. the A321neo.

best regards
Thomas

P.S. Wingspan is also bigger 36m, which would dampen appeal

virage wrote:

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

I believe only the diameter is similar.

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?

757 can never be re-built. Boeing got rid of everything they need to make them, so there will never be a next gen version, it has to be re-drawn from scratch, all new production jigs and everything.
"The 757 is the same airframe as the 737" is not correct at all, whoever suggested that, they are very different airframes, completely different wings, they have nothing in common with each other.

767 next gen is now being discussed, but many customers are turning their noses at a 767NEO type project as not interesting. It will likely happen, if for no other reason than to sell a whole bunch of them as more efficient point to point freighters, and GE is apparently looking into the idea of using GEnx on them.

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.

Pretty much everything suggested here is wrong. The fuselages aren't the same at all, and one of the biggest problem everyon has with the 737 today is how old it is. The systems behind the fancy glass screens haven't really changed since the -200s were introduced. The technology in the 757 is more advanced than the baseline 737 technology, so just "stuffing 737 electronics into the 757 cockpit" would be a downgrade, not an upgrade.

There are already 757s that have been upgraded to more modern avionics. That's not really an issue. A bigger issue is just not physically being able to build new 757s at all.

Not this again.... 757 restart thread #10000000000.

Perhaps I don’t understand. I “assume” that the 737MAX will eventually have everything fixed, and will be a safe aircraft. She might never be the latest A320 series, but she will serve the airlines as expected. (Is there still enough doubt that every single MAX frame built will never fly? No more MAX’s built?)

I “ASSUME” that at some point over the next 6ish months, and she will re-enter service, and the airlines waiting for them will ease them into the schedule. The balances will be delivered including the MAX-10. Boeing and the authority’s reputations will have been tarnished, but not forever.

If the venerable 737 has now reached her (no pun) maximum optimization, the talk is now of a brand new NB that is basically a 100% new 737-8/9/10 sized aircraft that has far better capabilities than the A320 series and 737MAX series. The largest of which will replace the 757 size.

My first question would be will a variant of this new NB be able to cover those niche missions of hot, high and short runway requirements? Will this 7N7 (N for New Narrow) have range capabilities to do East Coast North America to deep Europe? (Prague, Warsaw?) or NYC to deep South America: GRU/GIG/EZE? or 7-9 hour lengths? Or is the goal to simply replace every single A320/737 today but burn far less fuel and be all new tech?

This still leaves the world without something in between Boeing and Airbus’s smallest mainline aircraft and the next size up? (assuming the next size up a 788 for Boeing and an A330 for Airbus)

It still feels like a an expensive man’s sweater coming in: S, M, then XL & XXL maybe even XXXL - unless the M has pretty long range, great MTOW and hopefully roomier!

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

Boeing needs a family (a new family, not MAX for twenty more years) smaller than the 757.

IMHO, there's not enough size differential between 767 and 787 families, although a very light and range-limited 767prime could find a lot of regional use and East Coast TATL.

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.

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.

There are thousands of engineers and marketers, at Boeing and the airlines, looking at the problem. They’ve decided that a 757, NEO or not, isn’t the answer. When betting against the world, bet on the world.

GF

tommy1808 wrote:

aside of the 757 tooling being long gone

This does bring up a curious question for me though - this day in age, don't they have digital plans or even copies of the tooling designs? Obviously it would cost plenty, but would it really be that difficult to make since it's been already accomplished? Thanks for any input.

As far as the "armchair 757 comment", comon people, this is an enthusiast forum. Most of us like talking about our favorite aircraft regardless of thier status. I for one would love to see the seven five make a resurgence. But I also know that is and always will be a pipe dream. I would also love to see the Cessna 210 and Sabb 2000 be produced again. Again, I'm an airplane geek like the rest of you. Yea, there's the search function, but for those who have been arond A.net as long as I have, we all know that it's never been a prize winner.

For those that are still irritated by these posts I've got three simple words for ya - just ignore it! Don't make me bring back the "When will NWA retire thier DC-9s?" again!!!!

Regards

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 think the best line-up in retrospect since they decided to go down the MAX/777X would have been to do the following:

7W NSA instead of MAX that would now be entering service and you could then stretch and upwing it to fill the NMA Space by 2023/2024

787-11/12 instead of 777X - basically a stretched 787 with bigger wing/gear/engines - they have changed so much on 777X - this would have been simpler and ended up being a lot lighter and more competitive than 777X and use the excess production Capacity of the two 787 lines.

That would be entering service about now as well.

Then work with Boeing Brazil to build a 5W 220 competitor.

Then you have a nice and simple easy to build 3 cross section line-up with multiple wings and all common systems (as NSA/NMA and 5W would be based on 5W).

I guess I just don't understand why Boeing should surrender the 120-200 seat market, home to the best-selling aircraft of all time?

Contrary to popular belief, Boeing probably would like to make new aircraft and innovate instead of rehashing old tech for future aircraft.

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.

The wing is massively bigger than the 737 and even A321, and achieves nothing more than the latter. All that weight is expensive to drag around, and nobody needs the redeeming feature (extreme takeoff performance) any more.
A 757 done in 2020 would need an all new A321 sized wing to be competitive. And much weaker A321 engines as well.

I have noticed a trend in that we only ever get a "let's restart the 757 line" comment on a day of the week that has a Y in it.

Personally, I don't think you'll ever see a 767-sized aircraft again. A 7-abreast 2-3-2 economy class adds a lot of weight and drag over a narrow-body 3-3 configuration...at least with the typical circular cross-section. Optimizing an ovoid cross-section to be a twin-aisle and carry enough bags/cargo while maintaining the same weight/drag as a narrow-body, that's the sweet spot.

Boeing is on track to have the perfect lineup.

1) Short range narrowbody
2) Medium range small widebody
3) Long range large widebody

Three families evenly spaced to cover the full spectrum. I have been told the thought is to have three fuselage lengths in each family allowing a simple shrink with extra range and a simple stretch for improved CASM.

1) The short range narrowbody will be the 6AB 737 replacement. Launched around 2030.
160 seat 4000nm range (737-700 size)
190 seat 3500nm range (737-8 size)
220 seat 3000nm range (737-10 size)

2) The medium range small widebody. This will be the rumoured 8AB 797 launched next year.
797-6 250 seat 5200nm range
797-7 300 seat 4700nm range
797-8 350 seat 4200nm range (comes 5 years later)

3) The long range large widebody
787-9NEO 8400nm range
787-10NEO 7300nm range
787-11NEO 6200nm range

The 777X is a medium term solution and new engines on the 787 will make it stop selling after 2035.

benjjk wrote:

I guess I just don't understand why Boeing should surrender the 120-200 seat market, home to the best-selling aircraft of all time?

2nd best selling aircraft or best selling aircrafts ...

But yeah, doesn't make sense.....

Best regards
Thomas

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?

No Stratocruiser? Disappointing.

VSMUT wrote:

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.

The wing is massively bigger than the 737 and even A321, and achieves nothing more than the latter. All that weight is expensive to drag around, and nobody needs the redeeming feature (extreme takeoff performance) any more.
A 757 done in 2020 would need an all new A321 sized wing to be competitive. And much weaker A321 engines as well.

The B757's wings achieve a lot more than the A321 wing as they have the capacity to hold almost double as much fuel while providing low wing loading for better runway but also cruise performance.
If you hang a derivative of the Leap under the wings, a B752 would have far superior payload range compared to the A321.
The B757 has been killed ahead of its time, the same way the A380 is being killed today. New technology can totally change rhe business case as this one proves.
The B757 was not competitive in a high fuel environment flying with old derivatives of widebody engines, but it would be ultra-competitive today with derivatives of the latest gen of narrowbody engines.

The B757's airframe is not heavy, a derivative of the Leap would already make it a ton lighter.
Plus, the A321XLR will be much heavier than the standard A321CEO, not far below the B757's.

A B753 with Leaps would have TATL range and beat any aircraft on CASM and that includes the A380 in its densest possible layout.

Tooling can be made, what counts is the type certificate. If they build the fuselage and wings the same with just some aerodynamic tweaks, they can grandfather that.
It's not true that Boeing threw everything away. They are still provising support for a fleet of hundreds of aircraft, they have all the data they need to restart production.
People here don't get it that designing and building a new type takes a lot of resources and cash, with a large risk factor too.
The B757 has a type certificate, blueprints, production and maintenance procedures. Certifying a B757MAX would cost them next to nothing compared to a multibillion cleansheet.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

virage wrote:

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.

The wing is massively bigger than the 737 and even A321, and achieves nothing more than the latter. All that weight is expensive to drag around, and nobody needs the redeeming feature (extreme takeoff performance) any more.
A 757 done in 2020 would need an all new A321 sized wing to be competitive. And much weaker A321 engines as well.

The B757's wings achieve a lot more than the A321 wing as they have the capacity to hold almost double as much fuel while providing low wing loading for better runway but also cruise performance.
If you hang a derivative of the Leap under the wings, a B752 would have far superior payload range compared to the A321.
The B757 has been killed ahead of its time, the same way the A380 is being killed today. New technology can totally change rhe business case as this one proves.
The B757 was not competitive in a high fuel environment flying with old derivatives of widebody engines, but it would be ultra-competitive today with derivatives of the latest gen of narrowbody engines.

The B757's airframe is not heavy, a derivative of the Leap would already make it a ton lighter.
Plus, the A321XLR will be much heavier than the standard A321CEO, not far below the B757's.

A B753 with Leaps would have TATL range and beat any aircraft on CASM and that includes the A380 in its densest possible layout.

Tooling can be made, what counts is the type certificate. If they build the fuselage and wings the same with just some aerodynamic tweaks, they can grandfather that.
It's not true that Boeing threw everything away. They are still provising support for a fleet of hundreds of aircraft, they have all the data they need to restart production.
People here don't get it that designing and building a new type takes a lot of resources and cash, with a large risk factor too.
The B757 has a type certificate, blueprints, production and maintenance procedures. Certifying a B757MAX would cost them next to nothing compared to a multibillion cleansheet.

There are actually a lot of problems with this "idea".

Most of the B757 plans are not digital and definitely not to a standard to design new features on it. This would include massive investment to bring the plans to a modern age. Also this is a lot of hand work, as for one modern AI is not fool proof doing this work what actually means everything has to be done by hand. Then you can actually start designing new engines on to the frame. Then comes the next problem: Production processes are will need to be re-certified because no supplier works anymore on the standard from 1990 and production techniques are now digital as well. So new production processes will need development, design and certification.
Than the production line for Boeing has to be rebuilt and certified. The 757 has to be partially re-certified and after the MAX fiasco rather more than less. So at the end this is a multi year effort that costs a lot for almost no gain. And if Airbus decides to re-wing the 321 you spend years and billions of dollars for nothing.

Not gonna happen, the 757 is dead and will stay dead except waterbomber2 becomes CEO of Boeing.

RJMAZ wrote:

Boeing is on track to have the perfect lineup.

1) Short range narrowbody
2) Medium range small widebody
3) Long range large widebody

Three families evenly spaced to cover the full spectrum. I have been told the thought is to have three fuselage lengths in each family allowing a simple shrink with extra range and a simple stretch for improved CASM.

1) The short range narrowbody will be the 6AB 737 replacement. Launched around 2030.
160 seat 4000nm range (737-700 size)
190 seat 3500nm range (737-8 size)
220 seat 3000nm range (737-10 size)

2) The medium range small widebody. This will be the rumoured 8AB 797 launched next year.
797-6 250 seat 5200nm range
797-7 300 seat 4700nm range
797-8 350 seat 4200nm range (comes 5 years later)

3) The long range large widebody
787-9NEO 8400nm range
787-10NEO 7300nm range
787-11NEO 6200nm range

The 777X is a medium term solution and new engines on the 787 will make it stop selling after 2035.

This is a very interesting proposition BUT:

1) The 797 as it stands would lose key markets which the A321XLR can reach. I think we do need a NB LH aircraft in the market and Airbus is proving this. I am surprised Boeing is letting this go. A Nex Gen 757?? nope - several reasons already highlighted show that this is simply a non-flier (pun intended). But a clean sheet NB LH Aircraft. Some might say it is now impossible and I might be bound to agree since Boeing lost oo much time elsewhere. I always believed that the 797 program should be plug this whole but they went different.

2) Whilst I agree with your B737 replacement proposition, this definitely should not be the smaller range on the portfolio or Boeing would not only surrender that share of the market to the A220 but also would have render the JV with Embraer (and formation of Boeing Brazil) as a waste of time. They will have to work towards revamping/improving/reviewing/etc. the E2 offering which is too slow toleave the shelves so that they have a proposition on this segment to counter the A220

3) To have an aircraft that can replace the 777X (and the 748 for instance), Boeing would have to have a frame that can seat 10 abreast (3-4-3) and can fly a very long range. The B787 cannot offer this. It would be better to keep the family on the -8 -9 -10 (better market the 8/change its specifications).

All in all, the ideal, IMHO, would be:

1) E2 (replacement/equivalent) family to cater for the 75-150 seats - compete to A220
2) B737 MAX (or new narrowbody) with 6AB to counter the A320 family
3) B797 revamp so that the family is comprised by NB LH aircrafts able to counter the A321LR/XLR
4) B787 as it stands (8 9 and 10)
5) B777X The Long Range high density one.

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.

You want to replace thousands of 737 flying millions of flights a year all over the planet, by a 757 that never sold outside the US to begin with ?

Jomar777 wrote:

This is a very interesting proposition BUT:

1) The 797 as it stands would lose key markets which the A321XLR can reach.

I don't think so. The 787 sells well and the A321 sells well. There is no reason an aircraft half way between the two would not sell well. The higher cruising speed allows the 797 to fly 10% further with one crew. Plus the A321XLR is severely underwinged for 102t MTOW. An initial cruise of 28,000ft hurts fuel burn.

Jomar777 wrote:

2) Whilst I agree with your B737 replacement proposition, this definitely should not be the smaller range on the portfolio.

The 797's being available allows the 737 replacement to be optimised for shorter range. This allows it to be lighter and burn less fuel on sub 1000nm sectors.

Lets say you took the same 6ab cabin with 200 seat and built 4 optimised cleansheet designs with 2000nm, 3000nm, 4000nm and 5000nm range. The specs would very closely look like this.

2000nm, OEW 40t, MTOW 70t, ideal wingspan 34m
3000nm, OEW 45t, MTOW 82t, ideal wingspan 37m
4000nm, OEW 51t, MTOW 95t, ideal wingspan 40m
5000nm, OEW 58T, MTOW 110t, ideal wingspan 43m

Now on a 1000nm flight the 2000nm range model would have upwards of 10% better fuel burn per passenger than the 5000nm range model.

The medium haul small widebody 797 will allow the 737 replacement to be lighter and more efficient.

Jomar777 wrote:

3) To have an aircraft that can replace the 777X (and the 748 for instance), Boeing would have to have a frame that can seat 10 abreast (3-4-3) and can fly a very long range. The B787 cannot offer this.

Look at the 777X and A350-1000 sales. The Very Large Aircraft market is dieing. The number of international airports has doubled every decade The routes are getting thinner. Pushing traffic through large megahubs with a VLA is history. The 777X will sell well with all the A380's retiring and their routes require the largest aircraft possible. But when the 777X's are due for replacement airlines will pick the 787NEO and A350NEO.

Your solution of 5 aircraft families is overkill. That would have been the solution from the 1980's. Today aircraft are more flexible and versatile. 3 families should be able to cover all roles.

Aesma wrote:

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.

You want to replace thousands of 737 flying millions of flights a year all over the planet, by a 757 that never sold outside the US to begin with ?

That was then, now is now. Larger capacities and longer hauls are expected of narrowbodies these days. The 757 provides that and room to grow with larger fuel load and space for LEAP-derivatives and other future engines.

RJMAZ - You and I are close and having the same thoughts - just differing on Cross Section - Instead of yours I would propose the following - mine would cover a broader range.

1) Short range narrowbody
2) Medium range small widebody
3) Long range large widebody

Three families evenly spaced to cover the full spectrum. I have been told the thought is to have three fuselage lengths in each family allowing a simple shrink with extra range and a simple stretch for improved CASM.

1) The short range narrowbody will be a 5AB A220-A738 Competitor Launched soon. All seat Capacities Y- Sardine Class (less than 30" seat pitch), 36M wing

140 seat 4000nm range (A223 size)
175 seat 3500nm range (737-8 size)
200 seat 3000nm range (737-9 size)

2) The medium range small widebody. This will be the rumoured 7AB 797 launched next year. More Normal Y seats - call it about 30-31" seat pitch - Folding 42-43 M Wing that folds down to 36M
797-6 225 seat 5200nm range
797-7 260 seat 4700nm range
797-8 300 seat 4700nm range (comes 5 years later with a MTOW Bump and the 52K rumoured Engines, maybe a bigger wing - these could bump up the range of -6 and -7 as well to 6,000 and 5,500 NM respectively - The NMA variants)

3) The long range large 9W widebody - Y seat Capacity at 30/31" seat pitch
787-9NEO 8400nm range 380 Seats
787-10NEO 7600nm range 420 Seats
787-11NEO 7200nm range 460 Seats

The 777X is a medium term solution and new engines on the 787 will make it stop selling after 2030.

My approach would cover a broader range of Capacities/Abilities.

Sad to read that those ridiculous 757-myths are still allowed to be posted here.

VSMUT wrote:

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.

The wing is massively bigger than the 737 and even A321, and achieves nothing more than the latter. All that weight is expensive to drag around, and nobody needs the redeeming feature (extreme takeoff performance) any more.
A 757 done in 2020 would need an all new A321 sized wing to be competitive. And much weaker A321 engines as well.

Interesting viewpoint with so many on here saying that the A321 needs a new wing.
A single aisle aircraft family in the 752/3 size with new wings, engines and materials with an option to get 4500nm still air range would be a fantastic machine debuting around 2028. The market trend has been to upgauge, so maybe a design that allows for a simple shrink down to 160-165 seats, similar to how the 737-700/800/900 all have optimized wings.


Many people talk about how the 737-9 and A321 can perform 95% of the 757 mission's, but I've done payload planning for all 3 and can say that they can do 95% of the 757 passenger load 90% of the time. I can't send a 900ER with 180 pax, 265 bags with any mail or cargo SEA-HNL because it exceeds MZFW. The 752 can do it with 199 pax, 305 bags and 3700lbs of mail and cargo.

It's an interesting conundrum to have.

Recycling stuff from the 1970s is only a tad better than recycling stuff from the 1960s.

Replace 757 NG wirh NSA and then we’re talking. If they really feel like it, they can have a 100-seater below the NSA which would probably be 738-757 sized which is what most airlines currently want, and probably will be tops as big as it will get, as anything longer.... would be 753 sized... and that’s long.

And technically they could try and rebuild the 757 from scratch like they did in the late 70s-80s. It just may not end up being the same plane or design as it’s the 21st century.

tommy1808 wrote:

virage wrote:

- 767 next-gen (love how light that frame is)?

not enough benefit at current and likely future fuel prices.

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.

aside of the 757 tooling being long gone, it still has the large, heavy, and only useful in niche applications, wing on it. You are looking at some 20.000 pound extra weight vs. the A321neo.

best regards
Thomas

P.S. Wingspan is also bigger 36m, which would dampen appeal

IIRC the 757 wing was grossly overbuilt and has plenty of room for improvement. Between switching all the pure aluminum out for Aluminum-Lithium and the reduction in wing reinforcement, there's probably a lot of weight that can be removed essentially for free.

That said, I'd just as soon slap a 757-sized CFRP wing and landing gear on the 737 MAX 10's body with the 787's FBW system and send it from Chicago to Frankfurt. NMA done and dusted.

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?

- 737 MAX= expensive money drain, really hurt Boeing future investments and competitiveness! Probably will at the end unfortunately cost them as new future clean sheet design.
- 757 next-gen= old frame probably not going to do anything, re-engineering to NEO standard would probably cost more than just re-engine the aircraft.
- 767 next-gen= old frame they might do something but still 787-8 is doing part of its job, 767-300 with new engines might do the trick as niche since it is still in production! 767-400 with 8 abreast is similar to 787-8 so NEO 787 might do better and cost efficient trick!
- 787= production cuts after 2021-22 most probably 777 case of production reductions.
- 777X= MAX made their life miserable, 777X orders and certification is also a mess.

So next decade should be decade of a changes, carbon footprint, lower than expected economic growth, possible recession, Chinese future airliners( not in first part of the decade) and trade wars will represent a lot of issues for Boeing and Airbus duopoly!

patrickjp93 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

virage wrote:

- 767 next-gen (love how light that frame is)?

not enough benefit at current and likely future fuel prices.

virage wrote:

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.

aside of the 757 tooling being long gone, it still has the large, heavy, and only useful in niche applications, wing on it. You are looking at some 20.000 pound extra weight vs. the A321neo.

best regards
Thomas

P.S. Wingspan is also bigger 36m, which would dampen appeal

IIRC the 757 wing was grossly overbuilt and has plenty of room for improvement. Between switching all the pure aluminum out for Aluminum-Lithium and the reduction in wing reinforcement, there's probably a lot of weight that can be removed essentially for free.

Going Al-Li doesn't safe as much weight as you think

That said, I'd just as soon slap a 757-sized CFRP wing and landing gear on the 737 MAX 10's body with the 787's FBW system and send it from Chicago to Frankfurt. NMA done and dusted.

So a new aircraft with new certification for some 10-15 billion USD that has compromises over a full clean sheet?

And then I hop on a Delta A221 in LAN, enjoy my 18.5-19" seat all the way to MSP, to then transfer onto the frankenNMA 17" seat for 10 hours? Customers will love that.

Those comfy seats are a problem for anything Jurassic. Boeing didn't spend a lot of extra cash on making the 777x wider inside to do passengers a favour, they probably just understood that 10AB 17" Y-seats will be a tough sell for airlines in the near future. Delta seems to have gotten the message too, hence no 787.....

Best regards
Thomas

RJMAZ wrote:

Boeing is on track to have the perfect lineup.
...
1) The short range narrowbody will be the 6AB 737 replacement. Launched around 2030.
...
2) The medium range small widebody. This will be the rumoured 8AB 797 launched next year.
...
The 777X is a medium term solution and new engines on the 787 will make it stop selling after 2035.

Are you joking or are you serious?

RJMAZ wrote:

Jomar777 wrote:

This is a very interesting proposition BUT:

1) The 797 as it stands would lose key markets which the A321XLR can reach.

I don't think so. The 787 sells well and the A321 sells well. There is no reason an aircraft half way between the two would not sell well. The higher cruising speed allows the 797 to fly 10% further with one crew. Plus the A321XLR is severely underwinged for 102t MTOW. An initial cruise of 28,000ft hurts fuel burn.

Jomar777 wrote:

2) Whilst I agree with your B737 replacement proposition, this definitely should not be the smaller range on the portfolio.

The 797's being available allows the 737 replacement to be optimised for shorter range. This allows it to be lighter and burn less fuel on sub 1000nm sectors.

I very much agree with what you write. Not to say Boeing should be fine with B797 and B737 Max 7 and Max 8.

Or Boeing could make a B767 Max and spend the rest of the money on share buybacks to increase shareholder value.
A clean sheet B797 would really spoil a lot of stereotypes.

tommy1808 wrote:

Going Al-Li doesn't safe as much weight as you think.

So a new aircraft with new certification for some 10-15 billion USD that has compromises over a full clean sheet?

And then I hop on a Delta A221 in LAN, enjoy my 18.5-19" seat all the way to MSP, to then transfer onto the frankenNMA 17" seat for 10 hours? Customers will love that.

Those comfy seats are a problem for anything Jurassic. Boeing didn't spend a lot of extra cash on making the 777x wider inside to do passengers a favour, they probably just understood that 10AB 17" Y-seats will be a tough sell for airlines in the near future. Delta seems to have gotten the message too, hence no 787.....

Best regards
Thomas

11% is significant.

All engineering is a set of compromises. The business case has to be justified, and improvement is improvement.

Oh come now we've been putting people on 14 hour flights with 17" wide seats for a long time now with plenty of success, and now it's not just leisure carriers going for 10-abreast A350 designs. Boeing can likely sculpt another .3" per seat out of the walls like they did with the 777X if that's a concern. The 787 still outsells the A350, so we know 17.3" is fine for even shorter flights than the 78X runs.

When saying the A321/2 needs a new wing, it's a very debatable proposition. Let's say you would make it CRFP, and longer, which length would you choose ? Each incremental lengthening gives you more range, a bit more efficiency at that long range, and more weight. Then it also doesn't fit into the same gates anymore. Do you go for folding wingtips ? How much does that cost in development, weight, maintenance ?

Same questions apply to any NMA, 757neo etc.

Many airlines these days prefer to have less aircraft type that could do most of the jobs. We also see trend of using narrow-body for longer flights. The last one would be the fact that Majority of airlines seems to gravitate towards few type of aircraft:

1. B787-8 = around 240-250 seats in 2 class config.
2. B787-9 = around 280-300 seats in 2 class config.
3. A350-900 = around 300-330 seats in 2 class config.

These are the 3 best selling models these days. While smaller widebodies like B767-300MAX might work, the number of orders would probably be closer to A330-900neo or B777-9. Which probably wouldn't worth the time and billions of dollars they gonna spent on the development costs.

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.

That’s all I know.

Cheers.

patrickjp93 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Going Al-Li doesn't safe as much weight as you think.

So a new aircraft with new certification for some 10-15 billion USD that has compromises over a full clean sheet?

And then I hop on a Delta A221 in LAN, enjoy my 18.5-19" seat all the way to MSP, to then transfer onto the frankenNMA 17" seat for 10 hours? Customers will love that.

Those comfy seats are a problem for anything Jurassic. Boeing didn't spend a lot of extra cash on making the 777x wider inside to do passengers a favour, they probably just understood that 10AB 17" Y-seats will be a tough sell for airlines in the near future. Delta seems to have gotten the message too, hence no 787.....

Best regards
Thomas

11% is significant.

So, as expected you overestimate the effect 11% of the aluminium in the wing that can be replaced is a tiny fraction of the aircrafts weight. That is the reason why no one ever did the replacement on any aircraft type, even when considered like for the A350mk1 or 777x.

Best regards
Thomas

Why don´t Boeing just give in and negotiate with Airbus to licence build the A321... After all franchises are an American thing.

PC12Fan wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

aside of the 757 tooling being long gone

This does bring up a curious question for me though - this day in age, don't they have digital plans or even copies of the tooling designs? Obviously it would cost plenty, but would it really be that difficult to make since it's been already accomplished? Thanks for any input.

Yeah, this refrain always comes up when the 757 restart threads get rolling. "The jigs are gone" or "Boeing did away with all of the machinery" etc. I don't understand this line of argumentation.

I love the 757, but I'm not arguing for its return, even in NEO or some other upgraded form. But, had Boeing determined that the 757 was the direction forward, surely it would be easier to start building it again vs. doing a clean sheet design? They built a thousand of them. So, whether its old blueprints or old engineers or even pulling in an existing aircraft and reverse-engineering it... it would have to be easier than starting from scratch, right?

NoTime wrote:

So, whether its old blueprints or old engineers or even pulling in an existing aircraft and reverse-engineering it... it would have to be easier than starting from scratch, right?

Reverse engineering is usually much more work than from scratch. But of course it could be done and has been done at least for old, high value cars.

Best regards
Thomas

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.

tommy1808 wrote:

NoTime wrote:

So, whether its old blueprints or old engineers or even pulling in an existing aircraft and reverse-engineering it... it would have to be easier than starting from scratch, right?

Reverse engineering is usually much more work than from scratch. But of course it could be done and has been done at least for old, high value cars.

Best regards
Thomas

Boeing restarting the 757 and 767 is NOT reverse engineering.
The latter refers to engineering the form and function without having access to system elements (which are black box).
This is clearly not the case when a company is restarting a product that they themselves had designed, engineered and built.
Especially if the tooling is still available, according to Boeing (as witnessed by realtney's comment above).

Here's my armchair questions. How much of the B757 max does boeing expect to sell? What would be the development cost? So I'm assuming there would be no CFRP wing if Boeing wants to keep the B757 Max price low. Also what engine? Leap 1A or GTF?

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.

virage wrote:

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

- 757 next-gen (will easily accommodate LEAP and future engines)

Simple and relatively inexpensive. Comments?

That one will be the 797.

And what about freighters in Boeing's line up?
763F
748F
772F.

Yes I know the 748 has no more future as a passenger hauler but as a freighter it still has chances to receive new orders. I see the 748F as the only surviving quad in the long term future.

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.

They absolutely do not have the same fuselage. They have the same upper fuselage, but the lower bubble is different.