Yeah, I know, what you all are thinking now and I could not believe it either, but Reuters reports: according to some internal sources, Boeing, after scrapping the NMA-ideas, is considering a replacement for the 757 and 767 as a 757-like plane and an upgraded 767 with new wings and engines:

Since then, Boeing has been looking at distilling the two-aircraft NMA programme into one new 757-style plane, while studying a more modest 767 upgrade, sources said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/aircraf ... SL5N2CF5PN

I think it is pretty funny, that one of the most discussed potential aircraft revivals on A.net is actually going into a direction, probably nobody would have expected (but many hoped). But to calm things down before everything goes crazy: the "757-Plus" is just a nickname, therefore nowhere it is said, that they are bringing back the 757! For me it sounds like a plane on an existing platform in the size of an upgraded 757. So basically a NMA, which is not a clean sheet design.

Another report (German, with Reuters as their source):
https://www.aero.de/news-35178/Boeing-p ... d-767.html

I can see the 767-upgrade happening. The plane is still selling well and a relatively small investment could make it the go-to freighter for the coming decade(s).

But, I don't get why they want to release a 757-like plane to compete with the A321.
Wouldn't it be much easer to create a 737-replacement and lengthen it just like Airbus did?

It's a semantic way of saying it's a new plane in the 757 class. It's not a revival of the 757.

Wow, besides a small (or big, whichever) number of members on A.net, Boeing is also considering/dreaming about the re-engined 757.
==========================================================================================
Hopes that Boeing can make improvement to make the 757 airframe as light (and aerodynamically good) as possilble.
Or it just a clean-sheet design which directly replace the 757, as well as the 737?

In my opinion, it would be ok for Boe to re-engine the 757, as well as the 762 and 763.
With me it is non-sensical for B to redesign the 764 as it is almost the same size at the 788.

The ultra-uprated CFM-LEAP, the improved GEnx, as well as the advanced PW GTF would be perfect for the project.

Right now, Boeing is not in a position to spend billion of dollars on new airplane developments.

So this article basically tells us what Boeing was looking at before the current COVID-19 crisis.

A new 757 sized plane and a modest update to the 767.

The article already mentions that any new development is now put on hold, so it's just a discussion on what Boeing would have done if....

But right now it's way to early to speculate on what the next project will be, that will depend on how the industry will come out of this ongoing crisis. It's impossible to tell what the airlines want in a few years time.

However Boeing does have a brand new Wing factory built for the 777X that isn't doing much and probably won't be for quite some time. The Capital cost of rewinging the 767 or 757 may not be that bad.

Plus tons of unused Factory space - especially if they shift all 787 to Charleston.

Put 787/777X wing on Photocopier and hit reduce - no need to push technology in an era of low fuel cost.

They could sell those frames at quite a low Capital price - they just need engines.

Although I can see an 767x as a lot more likely than 757x as 767x can use 748 engines which are about the same as weight as the Rolls Royce 763 Engines.

That with a PIP and new Wing could be compelling. Long live 7W and of course 737-8/10 ER versions.

i kinda like the name '757+'

PepeTheFrog wrote:

Right now, Boeing is not in a position to spend billion of dollars on new airplane developments.

Sure it is. How much do you think they could spend over the next 12 months? They don't need to look at expensing $5 Billion on Day 1.

Antaras wrote:

Wow, besides a small (or big, whichever) number of members on A.net, Boeing is also considering/dreaming about the re-engined 757.
==========================================================================================
Hopes that Boeing can make improvement to make the 757 airframe as light (and aerodynamically good) as possilble.
Or it just a clean-sheet design which directly replace the 757, as well as the 737?

In my opinion, it would be ok for Boe to re-engine the 757

Except that's not what's happening at all.

Did you read the article? They're talking about an all-new plane that's slightly larger than a 757-200 with a bit more range.

but there's an angle of Boeing has to optimise its product line up for post covid which looks like a A321XLR and 757+ kind of future. so although they may slow it down to preserve cash, they must take it seriously

Opus99 wrote:

i kinda like the name '757+'

I want to naming three new version of 757: 757X, 757XS and 757XS Max
Those literally make sense.

Antaras wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

i kinda like the name '757+'

I want to naming three new version of 757: 757X, 757XS and 757XS Max
Those literally make sense.

Seriously? If launched it would be a brand new plane and not called 757Anything.

Don't you think Boeing are done, messing with +40 year old airliner designs, to revamp outdated technology?
The track record isn't exactly stellar.

MIflyer12 wrote:

PepeTheFrog wrote:

Right now, Boeing is not in a position to spend billion of dollars on new airplane developments.

Sure it is. How much do you think they could spend over the next 12 months? They don't need to look at expensing $5 Billion on Day 1.

Boeing is still selling fighter jets and not at loss. The USAF has bought the new and improved F-15 EX. Boeing's military side will give it the ability to weather the the myriad of mistakes on the commercial side. If What AB says is true about their financial position, Boeing could use the time to catch up to the A321 Frankensteins.

CPHGuard wrote:

Don't you think Boeing are done, messing with +40 year old airliner designs, to revamp outdated technology?
The track record isn't exactly stellar.

Meet the 50 year old F-15, sure it isn't any thing like the original but neither is the 737.

morrisond wrote:

However Boeing does have a brand new Wing factory built for the 777X that isn't doing much and probably won't be for quite some time. The Capital cost of rewinging the 767 or 757 may not be that bad.

Plus tons of unused Factory space - especially if they shift all 787 to Charleston.

Put 787/777X wing on Photocopier and hit reduce - no need to push technology in an era of low fuel cost.

They could sell those frames at quite a low Capital price - they just need engines.

Although I can see an 767x as a lot more likely than 757x as 767x can use 748 engines which are about the same as weight as the Rolls Royce 763 Engines.

That with a PIP and new Wing could be compelling. Long live 7W and of course 737-8/10 ER versions.

Nothing is cheap in aircraft development. These plans will be some time off into the future and by well they may well have changed.

I have to laugh at the multiple posts which create Frankenstein aircraft by cobbling together bits of other planes.

But hey nice to talk about something other than the nightmare facing the industry.

This would be hilarious were it not for COVID-19. Isn't April 1st over yet?

IWMBH wrote:

But, I don't get why they want to release a 757-like plane to compete with the A321.
Wouldn't it be much easer to create a 737-replacement and lengthen it just like Airbus did?

Yeah, that worked so well with the Max...

arcticcruiser wrote:

IWMBH wrote:

But, I don't get why they want to release a 757-like plane to compete with the A321.
Wouldn't it be much easer to create a 737-replacement and lengthen it just like Airbus did?

Yeah, that worked so well with the Max...

Worked out great for Airbus, and the Max’s issues are not because of lengthening the plane.


The Max is not a “737-replacement”. It is an updated 737. There is a difference between the two.

The 767 might make sense as some fast and dirty NMA replacement as the tanker is modernized, in production and some new cockpit readily available. Freighter outlook looks good too. But the 757? If this is not part of the 737 successor family it doesn't make sense. So it must be done right (new from scratch) and be really good.

The 767 upgrades make sense. It still sells as a cargo airplane, and the upgrades may generate more passenger sales - United may be interested.

I think Boeing would be better off developing an all new narrowbody, 797, to replace both the 737 and 757.
797-8: base version, optimized for 150-180 passengers. Replaces 737-800/MAX8.
797-9: stretch version optimized for 180-220 passengers. Replaces 737-900ER/MAX9/MAX10 and 757-200.
797-9ER: extended range version of the 797-9. A321XLR competitior. Replaces 757-200 on trans-Atlantic routes

I think it's obvious that Boeing doesn't have a clue or more likely doesn't have the money to do what it wants to do and has to concentrate on cheap alternatives. Throwing at the wall to see what sticks?

Austin787 wrote:

797-9ER: extended range version of the 797-9. A321XLR competitior. Replaces 757-200 on trans-Atlantic routes

By the time this gets to EIS, there won't be any 757s left flying TATL.

Well, it was in AWST less than a year ago. The 757ish plane was a slightly redesigned wing, mainly the fuselage/wing joint for better efficiency for production and flight. Many forget why the 757 production gave in to the 737 stretch/stretched and stretched again plus another stretch, was the cost difference and it was due to the wing fuselage Attachment. Same fuselage, different type of wing mounting. For the naysayers.... The 757 tooling was not destroyed. Go on the tour, they will show you where it is, along with 727 tooling... The fuselage size mentioned was between the 200 and 300 size. The 757 clearly beats the 321 in all aspects except fuel flow and heck, I like the slightly wider fuselage of the 320 series......who doesn’t. New engines take care of fuel flow problem. I have flown both. #s don’t lie...facts are facts.

Let the lost war of opinion start .............now..

Cheers

Austin787 wrote:

The 767 upgrades make sense. It still sells as a cargo airplane, and the upgrades may generate more passenger sales - United may be interested.

I think Boeing would be better off developing an all new narrowbody, 797, to replace both the 737 and 757.
797-8: base version, optimized for 150-180 passengers. Replaces 737-800/MAX8.
797-9: stretch version optimized for 180-220 passengers. Replaces 737-900ER/MAX9/MAX10 and 757-200.
797-9ER: extended range version of the 797-9. A321XLR competitior. Replaces 757-200 on trans-Atlantic routes

Problem is, how long until the 797 is in service and the cost to design a new plane vs upgrading an old frame. Look at the A300 to A-330. Redesigned a longer fuselage and new wing made a winner out of an old 1970 airframe. Great choice. Airbus has a book that describes the huge savings by upgrading this airframe for its wide body . It worked well.

I would love to see a 797.

Cheers

scbriml wrote:

Antaras wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

i kinda like the name '757+'

I want to naming three new version of 757: 757X, 757XS and 757XS Max
Those literally make sense.

Seriously? If launched it would be a brand new plane and not called 757Anything.

All the proof you need that either no one actually reads the articles, or only see what they want to see.

Article very clearly says a "new, 757 style plane" and of course people take that to somehow mean the 757 is coming back.

Might as well say it's a replacement plane that will be about the size of a 707.

FGITD wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Antaras wrote:

I want to naming three new version of 757: 757X, 757XS and 757XS Max
Those literally make sense.

Seriously? If launched it would be a brand new plane and not called 757Anything.

All the proof you need that either no one actually reads the articles, or only see what they want to see.

Article very clearly says a "new, 757 style plane" and of course people take that to somehow mean the 757 is coming back.

Might as well say it's a replacement plane that will be about the size of a 707.

Relax, nobody is saying the 757 is coming back. I literally said i like name 757+ seeing as that was then nickname given by the source. where in my post did i talk about the resurrection of the 757. ultimately they can call it what they like, i was just expressing my opinion on the nickname given to it

So at this point our friends in Seattle and/or Chicago are just throwing paper planes at a whiteboard and seeing what hits?

The NMA mkIV or V has same problem as it's predecessor did five years ago: nobody is going to pay a worthwhile premium over an A321neo (or an XLR now that's been launched) for an aircraft that is only marginally bigger and has only marginally better range and CASM? Any premium customers do pay over a neo won't be enough to cover the development costs, especially considering how the ship that was the 757-200 replacement market has sailed long, long ago. Yes there's a handful of 757-300s that don't have a direct replacement, but that's nowhere near enough to launch a program. How many planes will they sell? 200? 250? What's changed to make the business case work?

morrisond wrote:

They could sell those frames at quite a low Capital price - they just need engines.

How did that work out with all the very cheap Boeing 7E7s that they sold?

I agree with what you said regarding putting the Wing Factory and autoclave to good use.

scbriml wrote:

Austin787 wrote:

797-9ER: extended range version of the 797-9. A321XLR competitior. Replaces 757-200 on trans-Atlantic routes

By the time this gets to EIS, there won't be any 757s left flying TATL.

Well I mean there aren't any 757s flying transatlantic currently, so yeah.

This is pretty much a click bait article, but heck, media has to do their thing.

We already knew NMA was shelved and the effort would focus more on a 757 sized clean sheet. We already knew some people within Boeing were looking at a 767 upgrade mostly for the freighter market but perhaps with pax capability as well. The only new suggestion in this is their might be a new wing for 767, which I highly doubt will see the light of day.

The real problem with 767 is that its cross section is inefficient for pax and inefficient for freight. Airbus would be able to sell cheap A330neo and/or upgraded A321s or the eventual A322s and kill it dead. That, along with its aging systems tech and inefficient production line tech, makes it hard to see how they could justify building a new wing for it. If you wanted to own that segment you'd be better off designing a new light weight wing and wing box for a smaller 787/787F, one with folding wing tips able to fit into 767 gates/docks at FX and UPS.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

CPHGuard wrote:

Don't you think Boeing are done, messing with +40 year old airliner designs, to revamp outdated technology?
The track record isn't exactly stellar.

Meet the 50 year old F-15, sure it isn't any thing like the original but neither is the 737.

At least F-15 Advanced finally got fly by wire. 737 basically has an auto pilot that keeps getting asked to do things it never was intended to do.

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

I think it's obvious that Boeing doesn't have a clue or more likely doesn't have the money to do what it wants to do and has to concentrate on cheap alternatives. Throwing at the wall to see what sticks?

Yes, more or less. The R&D folks know if they don't have some tangible targets their jobs are at risk, yet with no money to do anything serious, this is the best they can come up with.

Yet we know in 2011 a few engineers were tasked with doing the 737RE study just in case that new small airplane clean sheet didn't come to fruition, and we know what happened next. If not, read https://leehamnews.com/2011/07/19/737re ... a-in-2021/ for some background.

To be fair, the article is really just a repackaging of earlier leaks, with a new 767 wing added as a teaser. I really doubt that wing will see the light of day, and if it does it very well could end up like 777x, a great wing forced to be mated with an inefficient fuselage.

[Edit: formatting issues...]

"the 777 mini-jumbo" Had not heard that one.
If the 767 got new wings, would they have added fly by wire? Sounds like a more extensive expensive upgrade than even the 777x mini-jumbo.

zkojq wrote:

So at this point our friends in Seattle and/or Chicago are just throwing paper planes at a whiteboard and seeing what hits?

The NMA mkIV or V has same problem as it's predecessor did five years ago: nobody is going to pay a worthwhile premium over an A321neo (or an XLR now that's been launched) for an aircraft that is only marginally bigger and has only marginally better range and CASM? Any premium customers do pay over a neo won't be enough to cover the development costs, especially considering how the ship that was the 757-200 replacement market has sailed long, long ago. Yes there's a handful of 757-300s that don't have a direct replacement, but that's nowhere near enough to launch a program. How many planes will they sell? 200? 250? What's changed to make the business case work?

I think covid means there will be less of a middle of the market. Border crossings may come with quarantine requirements so there will be less international travel. The 737/A320 family can do pretty much every domestic market. Boeing will be short of cash, so will airlines. I can't see how any of this can make the market in the next five years. Maybe a simple mod to put GEnX on 767 to keep selling freighters past the 2024(?) date where CF6s won't be allowed on new airplanes due to pollution regulations. That would be enough of a program to at least keep some development engineers and flight testers engaged till we know more about the post-covid world. Boeing's still got to do MAX RTS, MAX-10 EIS, 779 EIS, etc so there's still a few tasks coming down the pike.

"Flightglobal reported in October that Boeing was talking to General Electric about a “767-X” with new engines. But people familiar with the matter said Boeing had instead been studying a costlier plan to add new wings as well."

That is the million dollar question, how competitive will the 767 be with a new light wing and updated engines.

IWMBH wrote:

I can see the 767-upgrade happening. The plane is still selling well and a relatively small investment could make it the go-to freighter for the coming decade(s).

But, I don't get why they want to release a 757-like plane to compete with the A321.
Wouldn't it be much easer to create a 737-replacement and lengthen it just like Airbus did?

Maybe they feel a new design that spans the 150-225 pax range is too much?

Could the cabin sidewalls be reduced in width enough to make the 767-X comfortable at 8 abreast seating?

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just launch the 787-8 frighter and then maybe focus on making the pax 788 lighter?

And then launch a new 737/757 replacement that will compete with the a320 size market?

I still do not get the 767 size obsession.

sspontak wrote:

Could the cabin sidewalls be reduced in width enough to make the 767-X comfortable at 8 abreast seating?

Probably not. 777 was a much bigger fuse to begin with so there was more scope to find room. Airlines were already doing 10x so they didn't need to find too much extra space. 8x in 767 is terrible, finding an inch or two won't make it better. Besides it doesn't sound like the passenger model would be the target, freight is. They won't want to invest in a new design if they aren't really thinking the pax market will be the primary target.

The new 757 idea gets me thinking. Could this just be some backup production job to keep Renton busy if the MAX has to be finally cancelled for some reason?

randomdude83 wrote:

I still do not get the 767 size obsession.

Boeing is going to be building the 767 for a while due to the US Tanker contract. Might as well explore upgrade options that would also boost the plane’s commercial appeal.

randomdude83 wrote:

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just launch the 787-8 frighter and then maybe focus on making the pax 788 lighter?

And then launch a new 737/757 replacement that will compete with the a320 size market?

I still do not get the 767 size obsession.

I think the tipping point is when you consider a new wing for 767. Putting a new engine on the current 767 wing is easy. It's been done many times already. When you start looking at a new wing the costs go up immensely, to the point IMO where you start asking if it's better to put a new small wing on 787 to meet what ever goals you are trying to meet, rather than trying to perpetuate the 767 design, production line and supply chain for another few decades of life.

Noshow wrote:

The new 757 idea gets me thinking. Could this just be some backup production job to keep Renton busy if the MAX has to be finally cancelled for some reason?

Boeing's biggest problem is that they are bleeding cash. They need MAX to RTS to cash in on all the R&D they've already invested and the 400 frames they've already built. They aren't worried about keeping Renton busy. It's been tooled to build MAXes. Should that mission disappear, Renton's future becomes pretty uncertain. They already have 747 production winding down soon at PAE, and can always shift 787 to CHS. Renton could become the odd man out.

Revelation wrote:

sspontak wrote:

Could the cabin sidewalls be reduced in width enough to make the 767-X comfortable at 8 abreast seating?

Probably not. 777 was a much bigger fuse to begin with so there was more scope to find room. Airlines were already doing 10x so they didn't need to find too much extra space. 8x in 767 is terrible, finding an inch or two won't make it better. Besides it doesn't sound like the passenger model would be the target, freight is. They won't want to invest in a new design if they aren't really thinking the pax market will be the primary target.

It wouldn't be comfortable - but it was an option on the 767-400ER - with 777X style Scupted Sidewalls you may be able to get to 777w (not 777x) 10w comfort levels.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... 01txt.html

morrisond wrote:

However Boeing does have a brand new Wing factory built for the 777X that isn't doing much and probably won't be for quite some time. The Capital cost of rewinging the 767 or 757 may not be that bad.

The 757 is not in production anymore. The tooling has been destroyed.

How do you re-wing an aircraft that's not in production anymore?

You can't.

I'm sure the article meant to say "a new, 757 sized airliner".

Revelation wrote:

randomdude83 wrote:

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just launch the 787-8 frighter and then maybe focus on making the pax 788 lighter?

And then launch a new 737/757 replacement that will compete with the a320 size market?

I still do not get the 767 size obsession.

I think the tipping point is when you consider a new wing for 767. Putting a new engine on the current 767 wing is easy. It's been done many times already. When you start looking at a new wing the costs go up immensely, to the point IMO where you start asking if it's better to put a new small wing on 787 to meet what ever goals you are trying to meet, rather than trying to perpetuate the 767 design, production line and supply chain for another few decades of life.

Noshow wrote:

The new 757 idea gets me thinking. Could this just be some backup production job to keep Renton busy if the MAX has to be finally cancelled for some reason?

Boeing's biggest problem is that they are bleeding cash. They need MAX to RTS to cash in on all the R&D they've already invested and the 400 frames they've already built. They aren't worried about keeping Renton busy. It's been tooled to build MAXes. Should that mission disappear, Renton's future becomes pretty uncertain. They already have 747 production winding down soon at PAE, and can always shift 787 to CHS. Renton could become the odd man out.

The 777X program cost 7-10 Billion dollars for in essence a new wing and engines. Which is going to give Boeing and its customers (actual price) the biggest bang for the buck. A rewinged and engine 787? Or 767? Either program will be in production for a long time.

IWMBH wrote:

I can see the 767-upgrade happening. The plane is still selling well and a relatively small investment could make it the go-to freighter for the coming decade(s).

But, I don't get why they want to release a 757-like plane to compete with the A321.
Wouldn't it be much easer to create a 737-replacement and lengthen it just like Airbus did?

"create a 737-replacement and lengthen it" that would be the 737-MAX which is a flop..

the biggest thing is the 737 is too low to the ground to add truly more efficient engines.. New Wing and new engines on the 757 type place could be a great idea.

Coronavirus seems to be going out of focus, everything is slowly returning to normal. And A.net does the same, it returns to the pointless 757 threads. Good

Antaras wrote:

I want to naming three new version of 757: 757X, 757XS and 757XS Max
Those literally make sense.

Guessing Apple might have you for that. But it’s a great naming scheme. (Might as well have a 757XR for the cheap one)

conaly wrote:

I think it is pretty funny, that one of the most discussed potential aircraft revivals on A.net is actually going into a direction, probably nobody would have expected (but many hoped). But to calm things down before everything goes crazy: the "757-Plus" is just a nickname, therefore nowhere it is said, that they are bringing back the 757! For me it sounds like a plane on an existing platform in the size of an upgraded 757. So basically a NMA, which is not a clean sheet design.

But Boeing doesn't have a platform to do that so it would have to be 1 of 2 things:
a) A refreshed 757
b) A brand new aircraft.
The article implies that it would be b).

Antaras wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

i kinda like the name '757+'

I want to naming three new version of 757: 757X, 757XS and 757XS Max
Those literally make sense.

Maybe make a 4th one that is a shrink, and call it the 757SE. And, Boeing can make a long range 757, and call it the 757PRO.

PepeTheFrog wrote:

The 757 is not in production anymore. The tooling has been destroyed.

That is false. The tooling still exists.

Not that this has anything to do with a “new 757.”

PepeTheFrog wrote:

The 757 is not in production anymore. The tooling has been destroyed.

Yet post 25 says:

reltney wrote:

Well, it was in AWST less than a year ago. The 757ish plane was a slightly redesigned wing, mainly the fuselage/wing joint for better efficiency for production and flight. Many forget why the 757 production gave in to the 737 stretch/stretched and stretched again plus another stretch, was the cost difference and it was due to the wing fuselage Attachment. Same fuselage, different type of wing mounting. For the naysayers.... The 757 tooling was not destroyed. Go on the tour, they will show you where it is, along with 727 tooling... The fuselage size mentioned was between the 200 and 300 size. The 757 clearly beats the 321 in all aspects except fuel flow and heck, I like the slightly wider fuselage of the 320 series......who doesn’t. New engines take care of fuel flow problem. I have flown both. #s don’t lie...facts are facts.

Let the lost war of opinion start .............now..

Cheers

Lord knows where the truth is. The big deal is the supply chain doesn't exist any more, and setting it all up again would mean a lot of FAA production certificates have lapsed and would need new FAA evaluations to reinstate. Very expensive task.

william wrote:

The 777X program cost 7-10 Billion dollars for in essence a new wing and engines. Which is going to give Boeing and its customers (actual price) the biggest bang for the buck. A rewinged and engine 787? Or 767? Either program will be in production for a long time.

It's hard to evaluate.

The 767 production line was reorganized when the tanker deal was signed but I doubt it is as efficient as the 787 line. The 767 cockpit displays have been modernized and some new features added, but once you get past that, most of the systems are old designs. For instance you do not get the data you can use for predictive maintenance. Yet we read some operators prefer to avoid all that stuff and stick with old tech. Slapping GEnX from 747-8 on to the current wing seems to be a good compromise with regard to cost versus benefit, at least if/when oil prices return to historical trends.

The cost/benefit trade offs change totally when you start thinking about a new wing.

As above I think if you are considering spending the $$$ for a new wing you really should look at whether or not it makes more sense to invest that money into the 787 family rather than 767, since the big issue with the 767 is that its cross section is not efficient compared to A330. If you could design a lighter 787 wing with folding wingtips that could fit in 767 gates/docks you may capture the next generation of medium sized freighters and have a good MOM pax airliner as well.