Hello All,

As we all know, the 757 is a mid-size, narrow-body twin-engine jet airliner that was built by Boeing Commercial Airplanes from 1981 to 2004. The 757 is pretty much used on medium range flights, some US-EU routes, Hawaii, and domestic use.
The aircraft as many of you know is heavily overpowered and is amazing, in my opinion. As the 757's get older and are being retired from daily service. Will Boeing, seeing as there is no replacement, the A321 doesn't have the range as well as the 737-900, and given enough pressure from the airlines, restart the 757 production line but take it to the next level. Boeing would of course have to come up with more fuel efficient engines along with other things. What would you suggest Boeing do as these beautiful aircraft are starting to be retired.

New Engines?
Advanced wing?
New Winglets?
Different aircraft material?

I know that the 757 was lacking orders but also do you think the 757 was cut a little to early seeing as it's brother/sister the 767 is still in production?

The 757 replaced the 727-200.what replaced the 757? Was it the 737-800?

Quoting SWALUV (Thread starter): What would you suggest Boeing do as these beautiful aircraft are starting to be retired.

Build as many 737s as they can sell. And 787s.

Quoting SWALUV (Thread starter): restart the 757 production line but take it to the next level.

We can only dream. As much as I would love to see a 757NG, it will never happen. The closest thing we may see will be the next all new narrow body from Boeing., whenever that is. It would be phenominal though to see a revamped 757 with a composite wing and li-al fuselage and a geared powerplant. Such an aircraft would absolutely have to retain the 757 nose / cockpit! We are dreaming right?  

Quoting SWALUV (Thread starter): Will Boeing, seeing as there is no replacement, the A321 doesn't have the range as well as the 737-900, and given enough pressure from the airlines, restart the 757 production line but take it to the next level.

The tooling has been destroyed. The 757 will never be produced again.

Saying that they got it back or used the 767 production line then what?

[Edited 2012-08-04 19:06:03]

Please search. This has been discussed to death pretty much every few months.

the 757 is dead.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 6): Please search.

Oops!!! Didn't show anything when I did search at all! Well this isn't the first time that has happened!

No.
Because the 757 was a niche airplane whose missions can be handled by the 739/321 on the small end, or 787/332 on the high end.
While it's true to say that those planes aren't the same as the 757, it's also true that the missions that PERFECTLY suit the 757 are few and far between. The 757-200 is too capable for most domestic US or intra-Euro routes. Similarly, it's not enough for many Transatlantic routes.
Where it shines is in thin, light Transatlantic routes. But it took twenty years for carriers to put it there. And, there are challenges (periodic fuel stops on CO, for example, which is a very frustrating situation for misconnects).

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 8): Where it shines is in thin, light Transatlantic routes.

Ahh, I disagree the 757 is perfectly suited for Hawaiian routes as the 737's and A320's aren't as profitable, or so I have heard here on A.net. Also JFK-LAX, SFO are perfectly suited for 757's as well as high altitude airports, as I said when the 757 is overpowered.

Quoting SWALUV (Reply 5): Saying that they got it back or used the 767 production line then what?

There is no getting the tooling back. It has been destroyed.

This is an old thread, but still has worthwhile info regarding your question:

Did Boeing Shut Down The 757 Line Too Early? (by Flyf15 Jul 3 2007 in Civil Aviation)

I flew from Mexico to newark today. We had to make a fuel stop in baltimore??? What was supposed to be an 4 hour flight turned into an 8 hour nightmare.This would not have happened had it been a 757 plane instead of the 737.

The 757 has become a very successful plane and i'm sure if the demand is there Boeing will either bring it back or come up with a suitable replacement. I don't think tooling is a big deal. If the market is there i'll come back one way or another.

Its my understanding, based on reading here, that the number of 757s being used on routes that are not suitable for the 738/739 or A320/A21 is on the order of 50 - 75 total. No one is going to produce a full sized jet liner for such a small market. Yes, the 757 has the capability for those long thin routes - and I am fairly sure that the last ones flying will be on those routes a decade or so hence. But, then they will be replaced with a different aircraft. 787 seems the best match at the moment. In a decade there may be other matches.

Have a great day,

Quoting SWALUV (Thread starter): restart the 757 production line

unfortunately your topic is one of the most frequent that we'd rather not see..

Simple answer.. The fuselage and wing assembly areas no longer exist, the FAL is used for the 737 and 737MAX, all tooling except that required for spares manufacture has been scrapped. Component procurement has ceased except for spares, and vendor designed items (mainly electronics), The component manufacturing in Wichita has been converted to 737 production although they retain some spares capability and could etch a skin if needed for a repair.

all the upgrades you suggest make it a new plane with full manufacturing and airworthiness certification required

Face it the plane is dead.. I was involved with building all but the last 15, loved the plane, but it is time to look elsewhere.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 4): The tooling has been destroyed. The 757 will never be produced again.

That is not necessarily true. The jigs have been destroyed, not the tooling. The tooling is used on other programs. It is the jigs you are referring to. The blueprints are still in existence, hence the jigs can be rebuilt again. But it is not worth the expense to do so, and Boeing already knew this. This came from someone in a thread a few years back.

The 757 CAN come back, it is 100% possible. But Boeing will not take the expense to do so.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 14): The 757 CAN come back, it is 100% possible.

IDK, you might want to check your own replies in the thread I linked above. Just sayin'.  

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 15): IDK, you might want to check your own replies in the thread I linked above.

And I have....long time ago, on that very thread. I was corrected by someone else on the thread that the 757 CAN still be rebuilt, its just that the jigs are destroyed but the blueprints of that airplane is still in existence. But Boeing won't re do it for obvious reasons. It is in that thread you mentioned and I agreed to that.

Just sayin'.  

The only airlines that want a new 757 are virtual airlines run by a.netters.  

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17): The only airlines that want a new 757 are virtual airlines run by a.netters.

LOL. Yor not wrong, though.   

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17): The only airlines that want a new 757

Well, Boeing likely could sell a couple hundred of them today if the engine maker would commit to a pip for it. Yet most of those would have been 737 sales anyway, and certainly not enough to restart an entire production line from cold with no factory or tooling for it.

The 737-700 can perform any 757-200 mission, performance wise. The 737-900ER can fly as many people 3/4 as far with a lot less airframe weight and fuel burned. The 767 is around due to the KC-46 and 5 year delay of the 787.

A new 757 won't be built due to engines. The new engines for Max and NEO are way more efficient than the 757s. So somebody would have to invest a lot of money for a 35k-40k thrust engine with a chance for a small production run.

Maybe the next gen 737 (2027?) will sit up taller to allow open rotor engines and one more stretch. It could look a bit like a 757.

How about selling the Russian 757 more widely? It has western engines and avionics.

Quoting ADent (Reply 20): Maybe the next gen 737 (2027?) will sit up taller to allow open rotor engines and one more stretch. It could look a bit like a 757.

Although it pains me to say it, I'm pretty sure the MAX is the last trip around the block for the 737. Whatever comes after the max will have to be a clean sheet.

Quoting ADent (Reply 20): How about selling the Russian 757 more widely? It has western engines and avionics.

That...is a totally different aircraft that looks alot like the 757 but doesn't have the same economics, support, or user experience. To say nothing of being essentially an extremely low-production model.

Boeing is actually studying a replacement 757. The original plan was to dump the 757 in favor of the 737-900 however as many operators have found out, the -900 is not even close to a viable replacement. The following is from Flight Global several months ago:

Boeing confirms long-haul 757 replacement study
By: STEPHEN TRIMBLE WASHINGTON DC 11:48 26 Apr 2012 Source:

Boeing chief executive Jim McNerney confirms a replacement for the long-haul 757-200 market segment is being studied internally, adding potentially a new layer to the 737 Max concept.

The 757-200 ceased production in 2004, and was replaced on domestic routes largely by either the 737-900ER or the Airbus A321.

But US carriers have also introduced the 757-200 on long-haul routes, flying between East Coast cities and Europe and West Coast cities and Hawaii.

That has created a potential gap in the market, with US Airways complaining that the A321neo will lack the range to reach Europe from its Philadelphia hub and perhaps even Honolulu from its Phoenix hub.

"I think we're trying to think through exactly how to fill that market," McNerney told analysts on 25 April during a first quarter earnings call.

"The largest part of that [757-200 replacement] segment is going to be filled by the larger versions of the narrowbody [737 Max]," he says. "But there's some product planning we have yet to do, and we'll announce that in due course."

The remarks echo McNerney's statement about a 757 replacement last May. Speaking to analysts at last year's Boeing "investor day", McNerney explained the company's focus was on replacing the "heart" of the narrowbody market formed by the 737-700 and -800.

At the time, Boeing was still considering an all-new narrowbody, and McNerney suggested it could stretch that aircraft for the 757 replacement market or develop a shortened version of the 787.

Though Boeing resisted the re-engined 737 concept for several years, the airframer has tallied more than 300 firm orders for the CFM Internatinal Leap-1B 737 Max since launching the programme late last year.

McNerney re-affirmed that Boeing remains on schedule to complete firm configuration of the 737 Max series in 2013.

Quoting cargolex (Reply 21): Although it pains me to say it, I'm pretty sure the MAX is the last trip around the block for the 737. Whatever comes after the max will have to be a clean sheet.

For what it's worth, I agree...but I have this funny feeling that we'll talk about a new new new 737 20 years from now: 737 "EVO".

-IR

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 4): The tooling has been destroyed. The 757 will never be produced again.

Well, before the 757 was born the tooling didn't exist. That's not really a reason, as it can be built again.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2): Build as many 737s as they can sell. And 787s.

Because yes, having a huge gap like this, from the 739 to the 788, since the 763 is dying, is the way to go. Doesn't look like a good business plan for me.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 12): Its my understanding, based on reading here, that the number of 757s being used on routes that are not suitable for the 738/739 or A320/A21 is on the order of 50 - 75 total. No one is going to produce a full sized jet liner for such a small market.

Well, read above. So, you have a 50-75 aircraft demand for a huge gap like this? What has changed that much in this world, that 20 years ago it made sense to have TWO models in this range and now it doesn't make sense to have even one?

Quoting ADent (Reply 20): The 737-900ER can fly as many people 3/4 as far with a lot less airframe weight and fuel burned

It just doesn't go inside my brain. I can't see how a smaller plane fits AS MANY as a larger one. Well, if I compare a VIP A380 with a 737, the 737 carries a lot more people. It doesn't make sense, and i'm not even talking about cargo, which I don't know about.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 6): Please search. This has been discussed to death pretty much every few months.

Quoting kanban (Reply 13): unfortunately your topic is one of the most frequent that we'd rather not see..

Well, first of all, no one if obligated to read every thread. Second, no, this has NOT been discussed to death. What has been discussed to death in this forum is why the 757 died and what about restarting production, and the answer is always pretty much the same: because it received no orders and because it is a niche plane bla bla bla. This thread, however, is basically asking this: Ok, so you are right it was a niche plane and it received no orders, now, what should boeing do to change that.

Answering what I think was the question, I think the 757 will come back, but not with the name of 757. This will probably change. The thing we might see in the future would be something in the middle of the 752 and the 763, at least in my opinion. Yes, the 767 is still in production, but it is not the best anymore. It will sell more than 75 frames, if boeing does their job and goes right on the marketing of the product. An aircraft like this would probably be a game changer, providing range and economics for routes not capable of handling a 787 and too far or too loaded for a 739MAX. The problem with todays catalog of Boeing is that well, they don't have anything between the 737 and the 787, so when you look down to the 739, you will also look down to the A321 and Boeing seems to be losing this battle.

Boeing did shut the 757 line down too early. If they had persevered through a temporary slump in orders a NG version would still be in production today.



But they didn't and there is nothing remotely close to it in capability now or on the horizon.



It ain't coming back..

WBs will be used down to 4000nm and NBs will be used up to 3700nm. Maybe a 787 is profitable on long and thin routes if cargo is carried instead of 40 seats.

I seem to recall that at around 2006 Fed Ex were talking to Boeing about a production restart for an order of 90 757F's and even that didn't convince Boeing then the expense of restarting a new production run was worth the effort. Hence Fed Ex have gone to the second hand market and converted them. Who knows how many other pax & cargo 757's could have been sold since had Boeing said yes then. Also it's a shame the TU-204 hasn't been developed into a true reliable economic and trusty replacement for the 757.

Quoting dz09 (Reply 11): I flew from Mexico to newark today. We had to make a fuel stop in baltimore??? What was supposed to be an 4 hour flight turned into an 8 hour nightmare.This would not have happened had it been a 757 plane instead of the 737.

I don't see how a 757 would have fixed that. The 737 is more than capable of flying that route. Maybe you should choose an airline that actually knows how to calculate fuel requirements, and one that can refuel their aircraft in under 4 hours.

Quoting dz09 (Reply 11): I flew from Mexico to newark today. We had to make a fuel stop in baltimore??? What was supposed to be an 4 hour flight turned into an 8 hour nightmare.This would not have happened had it been a 757 plane instead of the 737.

Any plane can 'not make it' if fuel is miscalculated. I would say that a 737 is just fine to do MEX-EWR under most circumstances.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 6): Please search. This has been discussed to death pretty much every few months.

  

I don't know why the moderators permit threads like this to be re-started over and over again. Everything said here has been discussed over and over again and with the same replies. Repetition on this forum is becoming more and more common.

Quoting rg787 (Reply 24): Well, first of all, no one if obligated to read every thread. Second, no, this has NOT been discussed to death. What has been discussed to death in this forum is why the 757 died and what about restarting production, and the answer is always pretty much the same: because it received no orders and because it is a niche plane bla bla bla. This thread, however, is basically asking this: Ok, so you are right it was a niche plane and it received no orders, now, what should boeing do to change that.

Really?

Why No 757NG? (by WROORD Jan 7 2010 in Civil Aviation)
B-757 Relaunch As B-757-800ER? (by Delta777Jet May 30 2009 in Civil Aviation)
What Would An Updated 757 Have Been Like? (by DL767captain Mar 16 2008 in Civil Aviation)
Did Boeing Ever Consider A 757NG? (by JAM747 Feb 20 2007 in Civil Aviation)
757 Next Gen? (by Aa777jr Nov 14 2004 in Civil Aviation)

Just to give you a quick taste. There are so many of these threads it is unbelievable. Take a look through this:

https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...&submit=1&starter=&search_active=1

Quoting rg787 (Reply 24): Well, read above. So, you have a 50-75 aircraft demand for a huge gap like this? What has changed that much in this world, that 20 years ago it made sense to have TWO models in this range and now it doesn't make sense to have even one?

The range of the 737/A320 has increased enough so that it can cover 90-95% of the 757's (former) missions at a fraction of the fuel cost. On the other end of the scale, the A330 has taken over the 757's longest routes (and the 767's routes) as it can do them at a fraction of the fuel cost. The reduction in costs also means the load factors do not have to be particularly high to create the same profit and the increased number of seats means that more passengers can be flown if demand increases.

The only place the 757 still makes sense is the US, and even there it is slowly being over taken by the 737/A320.[Edited 2012-08-05 02:47:09]

[Edited 2012-08-05 02:48:58]

Quoting sweair (Reply 26): WBs will be used down to 4000nm and NBs will be used up to 3700nm. Maybe a 787 is profitable on long and thin routes if cargo is carried instead of 40 seats.

With respect, the focus here on a.net is always towards the North Atlantic/USA/Europe. The zero-growth markets.
Airbus & Boeing are both way smarter than that, IMO.

The future in the short-medium term is easy to point-to. Asia.
757s in Asia?

    

cheers, Billy

Quoting rg787 (Reply 24):

Quoting U2380 (Reply 31): Really? Why No 757NG? (by WROORD Jan 7 2010 in Civil Aviation) B-757 Relaunch As B-757-800ER? (by Delta777Jet May 30 2009 in Civil Aviation) What Would An Updated 757 Have Been Like? (by DL767captain Mar 16 2008 in Civil Aviation) Did Boeing Ever Consider A 757NG? (by JAM747 Feb 20 2007 in Civil Aviation) 757 Next Gen? (by Aa777jr Nov 14 2004 in Civil Aviation) Just to give you a quick taste. There are so many of these threads it is unbelievable. Take a look through this: https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...&submit=1&starter=&search_active=1

I agree, there's way too many threads about this same topic already, I guess some dont use the search function. To answer rg787, the 737-900ER has the capacity to replace the 757 on MOST routes (excluding the transatlantic ones of course) airlines typically have seating on the 757 ranging from about approx 175-200 pax roughly with 185 being average. The 739ER has a maximum capacity of 215 pax, yes a tight squeeze but its possible since Boeing added the extra emergency exits behind the wing. With the MAX coming online in about 5 or so years, the MAX 9 will have the range to cover practically all of the current 757 routes which is flown by first 1000 or so 757s. The only routes which will NOT be covered by the 737 and the 737MAX like I said before will be the transatlantic routes which are done by the last 50 or so 757s which still have a good amount of years left in them. All of this was mentioned in a Boeing presentation at the recent Farnborough Air Show.

A handful of 757's will be rebuilt for a variety of second-life purposes such as cargo, business, and various other special mission platforms. It may drink gas a little more than the forthcoming generation of efficient aircraft, but it's got power to spare that the 739 doesn't, and it's a robust airframe.

Quoting U2380 (Reply 31): Just to give you a quick taste. There are so many of these threads it is unbelievable. Take a look through this:

What you saw are replies to the same topic.   

At the risk of getting killed by this zombie topic:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2): And 787s.

This is probably what airlines are going to start doing. It will work better in the long run, I think.

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 33): I guess some dont use the search function.

Just to say,

After being on this website for a very long time I have realized that the search button only searches for the same title. I always use the search button but it never show's anything, sorry that you are offended but I had this question.   

Quoting SWALUV (Reply 37): Just to say, After being on this website for a very long time I have realized that the search button only searches for the same title. I always use the search button but it never show's anything, sorry that you are offended but I had this question.

Sorry SWALUV but my post wasn't directed at you, but rather in response to rg787's post. But there are variations in the topic titles as U2380 posted, which pretty much end up being the same thing.

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 38): Sorry SWALUV but my post wasn't directed at you, but rather in response to rg787's post. But there are variations in the topic titles as U2380 posted, which pretty much end up being the same thing.

OOPS!!!!! Duh... Sorry about that didn't know, ( note to self) Read more into the topics to see who they are directed at...            

Quoting TC957 (Reply 27): Also it's a shame the TU-204 hasn't been developed into a true reliable economic and trusty replacement for the 757.

I guess this could be done, but most airlines don´t have faith in Russian manufacturers, in which I don´t mean safety concerns but customer support.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 19): Well, Boeing likely could sell a couple hundred of them today if the engine maker would commit to a pip for it.

I don't believe they could.

The only airlines flying the 757 in quantity are the United States carriers and they now have made major future purchases of 737-900ERs, 737-9s, A321-200s and A321-200neos to start replacing them.

And the engine makers would need to commit to more than just a PiP - we'd need CFM and Pratt to offer LEAP-X and the GTF. And even if they did, I am skeptical that the airlines would buy them.

Not gonna happen...No way, No how.

As others have said...the tooling/infrastructure and outsourced contracts are G-O-N-E.

Quoting SWALUV (Reply 35): What you saw are replies to the same topic.

Sorry, I should have said, I meant all the pages in that link. This topic has been going round for a good few years.

It would appear the only people who don't want the 757 line restarted are Boeing and the airlines.

Those losers -- what do they know ?   

Quoting TWACaptain (Reply 22): At the time, Boeing was still considering an all-new narrowbody, and McNerney suggested it could stretch that aircraft for the 757 replacement market or develop a shortened version of the 787.

A "shortened version of the 787" ??   
This would be heaven for those who like stubby aircraft designs.

I thought the idea of a shrink was to add range - aka 332 (the only really successful shrink in recent times). Stretching them seems to work so much better.


Cheers,
StickShaker

No, no, no and no.

This question comes up at least once a month and the answer is always no. The tooling has long been destroyed and there likely isn't a market for them anyway. The only carriers interested in acquiring additional 757s right now are only interested in used frames anyway.

Quoting rg787 (Reply 24): Well, before the 757 was born the tooling didn't exist. That's not really a reason, as it can be built again.

At an extraordinary cost. Boeing isn't going to spend the capital to restart the 757 line only to build 30 copies. You also have to take into account the opportunity cost of shutting down another line to restart the 757 as well - real estate and other resources is finite.

Quoting rg787 (Reply 24): What has changed that much in this world, that 20 years ago it made sense to have TWO models in this range and now it doesn't make sense to have even one?

Simple: the 737NG and the A320 family. A 739ER or an A321 can do 80% of the missions that the 757 can, while doing them much more economically. Really, the only areas those two frames fall short in is certain hot and high South American destinations where the performance is necessary and the few niche, long and thin European destinations that necessitate the range. Both frames can economically do Hawaii and they can do transcons as well.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 25): Boeing did shut the 757 line down too early. If they had persevered through a temporary slump in orders a NG version would still be in production today.

And you know this because?

Quoting rg787 (Reply 24): Well, first of all, no one if obligated to read every thread. Second, no, this has NOT been discussed to death. What has been discussed to death in this forum is why the 757 died and what about restarting production, and the answer is always pretty much the same: because it received no orders and because it is a niche plane bla bla bla. This thread, however, is basically asking this: Ok, so you are right it was a niche plane and it received no orders, now, what should boeing do to change that.

I come here rather casually and I see this same question asked quite often. I don't much understand the point of speculating about these pie in the sky theories that will never in a cold day in hell happen.

the 757 as an airplane will not ever come back, BUT, the capacity might. OEW was about 50% of the 788, range with winglets was about 50% of the 788. Seating was more than 50% of the 788.

A fictional airframe with the range of 4500-5000nm with 200seats filled and an OEW of max 60t. That would be one very efficient frame for some routes. Will someone do it? It depends on what need airlines see going forward, maybe over crowded mega hubs have reached a limit with night curfews etc.

Quoting kanban (Reply 13): unfortunately your topic is one of the most frequent that we'd rather not see..

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 30): I don't know why the moderators permit threads like this to be re-started over and over again. Everything said here has been discussed over and over again and with the same replies. Repetition on this forum is becoming more and more common.

Any future 757 "come back" thread should automatically be re-directed to a list of ALL the threads on re-starting the 757... not just on Civil Aviation but also on Tech/Ops.

I don't think people should be complaining about another 757 thread or another Fokker thread. The threads are clearly titled. If you've had enough already don't click on the new one. This thread is up to 46 posts and the most recent Fokker thread if I remember right got up to 50-60 posts. Some people want to rehash these topics. Whats the harm? Those that don't want to rehash them don't have to be a part of doing so.

If you really want a 757 size plane the 762 is still available but I don't see any takers. The 757 won't be back. The 739ER and A321 can do 3000 mile routes cheaper and there's not enough 4000 mile routes being flown by the 757 to justify building them again.