questions wrote:

If the 757 was still in production, what are the most likely modifications Boeing would have made to make it competitive with the A321XLR?

Or would the 757, however modified, not be competitive with the A321XLR?

An interesting question - the A321NEO engines would not quite be powerful enough and there is no other real option in the 35,000 to 45,000lb thrust class that's new and modern. They could have re-winged it with a composite wing. The main problem is the 757 basic design goes back too far, also it was optimized for US transcon from the outset and carries more weight vs a stretched A320 effectively.

The proposed 757 ER version had several modifications:

A 2000 USG horizontal stabilizer fuel tank, this would add another hour and a half endurance


The same cockpit as the 767-400 (Boeing installed and tested this in a 757)


A reduced fuel burn RR engine


Various other modifications including more use of composites to save weight and cabin upgrades


It would have been an outstanding aircraft

questions wrote:

If the 757 was still in production, what are the most likely modifications Boeing would have made to make it competitive with the A321XLR?

Or would the 757, however modified, not be competitive with the A321XLR?

Wingtips, ACT fuel tank and new engines. The problem is the 757 has a unique engine size so a costly engine development.

The 757 role would have definitely shifted to a long thin route aircraft. That has been the area of extreme demand in the last 20 years driven by the 787.

It is worth noting that 757-200 is fuel capacity limited as with the tanks fully filled it can still carry a full economy cabin of 220 passengers. With a lower density long range cabin with say 150 seats Boeing could definitely fit more fuel if they had an aux tank. The range would get a considerable boost when combined with new engines.

It would comfortably be able to fly from say Los Angeles to Japan with 150 passengers. This js something that the A321XLR could not do unless it had like 50 passengers which would be highly unprofitable.

Also if the 757-200 received the higher 123,830 kg MTOW of the 757-300 it could probably fit 3 Auxiliary tanks. It would definitely be worth doing one large XLR style fuel tank if it had the MTOW bump. This would put range closer to 6,000nm. It would truly be a MOM aurcraft. It could fly from the west coast if the US to central Europe. Heck with a 3 class cabin widebody density cabin (100 passengers) it could probably do New York to Tokyo.

Nothing much, really. Just a pair of new engines (which currently doesn’t exist), a new wing, a new centre wing box, new landing gear, fly-by-wire and a complete systems overhaul. Do all that, and you’ll end up with a machine weighing 10 tons more than the competitor whilst offering little, if any, performance benefits.

I loved flying the 757 and it is certainly amongst my favourite aircraft of all time. But it’s way past due date and time to let it go.

I've been told that in terms of technology, building & maintenance costs of the 757 and 767 where far too similar to make the 757 a real competitive NB.
And a 757 is 20% heavier than a A321, which doesn't help on economics. And production technology for a 757 is like 40-45 year old production technology.


https://www.airhistory.net/photo/298689/No-Reg

They should have done a combined 757/767 MAX instead of the 737 MAX using the tanker funding. And then build a clean sheet 737 follow on.

New engine, wing and fuselage should do the trick!

JerseyFlyer wrote:

New engine, wing and fuselage should do the trick!

In short: jack up the model number decal and slide a new aircraft under it.

keesje wrote:

And a 757 is 20% heavier than a A321, which doesn't help on economics.

But the 757-200 has 22% more range and can carry 30% more payload the same distance as the A321CEO. This definitely helps economics.

The A321CEO has a range of 3,200nm and a 93.5t MTOW. The A321XLR has a range of 4,700nm and a 101t MTOW. The A321XLR gained a massive 46% more range thanks to a 8% increase in MTOW and next generation engines.

The 757-300 has a 7% higher MTOW than the 757-200. So if the 757-200 got the 7% MTOW increase and next generation engines like the XLR then it should too get a range boost of around 40%.

The 757-200 has 3,915 nm range so an extra 40% means a range of 5,481nm. This is the aircraft members on here dream of. The ultimate efficient long thin route aircraft. It would be able to do many widebody routes with better economics.

All the arguments used to say how the A321XLR could open new routes could also apply to the 757-200 next gen. The extra 500nm opens up even more routes.

RJMAZ wrote:

questions wrote:

If the 757 was still in production, what are the most likely modifications Boeing would have made to make it competitive with the A321XLR?

Or would the 757, however modified, not be competitive with the A321XLR?

Wingtips, ACT fuel tank and new engines. The problem is the 757 has a unique engine size so a costly engine development.

The 757 role would have definitely shifted to a long thin route aircraft. That has been the area of extreme demand in the last 20 years driven by the 787.

It is worth noting that 757-200 is fuel capacity limited as with the tanks fully filled it can still carry a full economy cabin of 220 passengers. With a lower density long range cabin with say 150 seats Boeing could definitely fit more fuel if they had an aux tank. The range would get a considerable boost when combined with new engines.

It would comfortably be able to fly from say Los Angeles to Japan with 150 passengers. This js something that the A321XLR could not do unless it had like 50 passengers which would be highly unprofitable.

Also if the 757-200 received the higher 123,830 kg MTOW of the 757-300 it could probably fit 3 Auxiliary tanks. It would definitely be worth doing one large XLR style fuel tank if it had the MTOW bump. This would put range closer to 6,000nm. It would truly be a MOM aurcraft. It could fly from the west coast if the US to central Europe. Heck with a 3 class cabin widebody density cabin (100 passengers) it could probably do New York to Tokyo.

I dont think that ACT(s) is(are) even necessary. Even the existing 757-200 has a very decent range. New fancy engines alone would push the range of the 757-200 by at least 25%, a few other tweaks like more conposites here and there could even push it to 30%+. These 30% alone would increase the full payload range to above 4.000nm, 400+nm more than the XLR with a higher payload. Range with 20t payload would be around 4.700nm, I think this would be more than enough for most Airlines. The high payload and high Cargo Volume compared to the XLR should be a great advantage.

The ACT could be offered optional. Alternativey they could have installed these Horizontal Stabilizer Tanks of the proposed 757-200ER and used this additional fuel capacity for a slight stretch of the fuselage, maybe 3 rows. This would make the 757X a 190 seat aircraft in 2 classes, another advantage over the XLR and also helps to bring down CASM.

So sad, the 757 had such a potential, all wasted.

questions wrote:

If the 757 was still in production, what are the most likely modifications Boeing would have made to make it competitive with the A321XLR?

Or would the 757, however modified, not be competitive with the A321XLR?

I would ask myself, why would a modified and thus more modern 757 be competitive to the A321XLR / 787 if the original 757 was not competitive in the 2005 climate? And I do not see how, so I would answer your question with: no, it would not be competitive. My two cents.

Dutchy wrote:

I would ask myself, why would a modified and thus more modern 757 be competitive to the A321XLR / 787 if the original 757 was not competitive in the 2005 climate? And I do not see how, so I would answer your question with: no, it would not be competitive. My two cents.

The 757 found new life just after the program was terminated.

Long-haul, single aisle operations weren’t as prevalent as they are now. Sure you had 757s running west coast to Hawaii and Icelandair running them across to the states, but widebodies were still king and queen at this time in the segment. I can still remember the level of surprise when Aloha introduced west coast service with the 73G — it just went against the norms of the time and is something we wouldn’t raise an eye at now.

Also, the idea of long, thin routes were still a twinkle in the eye of airlines at this point. Sure you had SQ introducing New York to Singapore with the A340-500, but service to many destinations required at least 1-stop thru a hub of sorts.

It seemed that just as soon as the 757 program ended, all of these ideas came to light and it was just too late. Yes the 757 isn’t coming back, but it is fun to play the what-if 757NG game.

-R

All good and well the replies outlining the possible modifications, the 757-200X program, etc but just one small problem; why would the 757 still be in production? I’m just curious because I thought we moved on from 757X/MAX/NEO threads but it may just be me. Sorry if I sound snarky to anyone but I really don’t see a purpose in hypothetical discussion of the 757X especially right now as it has been beaten to death several times.

Had there been a market for such a plane and had the 757-200X package became a reality, we’d all love it. But sadly the outcome is different

questions wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

All good and well the replies outlining the possible modifications, the 757-200X program, etc but just one small problem; why would the 757 still be in production? I’m just curious because I thought we moved on from 757X/MAX/NEO threads but it may just be me. Sorry if I sound snarky to anyone but I really don’t see a purpose in hypothetical discussion of the 757X especially right now as it has been beaten to death several times.

Had there been a market for such a plane and had the 757-200X package became a reality, we’d all love it. But sadly the outcome is different

I have found the comments very helpful in answering a specific question I had.

I appreciate those who took the time to write a thoughtful comment. I learned a few things I had not gleaned from other similar threads.

You clearly were not paying attention. Your need to exhibit poor behavior was greater than utilizing common sense and simply moving on to another thread of greater interest to you.

I hope you can find another forum in which your need to be big man on campus is met. It’s not around here.

Again, thanks to the other folks who responded in a helpful and informative way.

You raised an interesting question, some individuals don’t seem to understand it’s not mandatory to read any of these posts !


It’s a discussion forum, revisiting a subject that’s come up frequently through the years is normal and part of the attraction of this forum


Someone always has something new to add or a fresh perspective that wasn’t raised before


In my opinion shutting down the 757 production line because there was a temporary lull in sales was the biggest mistake Boeing ever made


If they had waited it out they would be building a NG version today

questions wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

All good and well the replies outlining the possible modifications, the 757-200X program, etc but just one small problem; why would the 757 still be in production? I’m just curious because I thought we moved on from 757X/MAX/NEO threads but it may just be me. Sorry if I sound snarky to anyone but I really don’t see a purpose in hypothetical discussion of the 757X especially right now as it has been beaten to death several times.

Had there been a market for such a plane and had the 757-200X package became a reality, we’d all love it. But sadly the outcome is different

I have found the comments very helpful in answering a specific question I had.

I appreciate those who took the time to write a thoughtful comment. I learned a few things I had not gleaned from other similar threads.

You clearly were not paying attention. Your need to exhibit poor behavior was greater than utilizing common sense and simply moving on to another thread of greater interest to you.

I hope you can find another forum in which your need to be big man on campus is met. It’s not around here.

Again, thanks to the other folks who responded in a helpful and informative way.

I am very very sorry for my bigotry! I should know better to not shut down peoples’ questions and rather contribute meaningfully. I made false assumptions based on the long standing semi-“hatred” of the 757-resurrection threads and I have failed to realize that times change and that people always are interested in re-analyzing things that may not have been obvious before. I am in no way an authority to speak for Anet and make assumptions and I am in no way a knowledgeable big shot figure. I am very sorry to the OP and anyone else if I sounded snarky so please accept my apology.

Now, back to the topic of the thread, I shall participate meaningfully. I remember there was this concept from 2020 called the 757-Plus which had a gigantic mega thread on here and a Reuters article but I never quite understood what the concept meant.
https://www.reuters.com/article/aircraf ... SL5N2CF5PN
viewtopic.php?t=1445405

To me it seems like they were “plussing” new technologies from aircraft like the 787 onto the basic frame of the 757 around the 757-300’s seating capability. That is just my own uneducated interpretation of the proposition but in the mega thread there were other ideas thrown around too.
To me it seems somewhat similar to the 757-200X treatment that was envisioned around 2000 or something. As others have indicated, it would’ve boosted the 757’s range to about 5000 mi (nmi or mi?). Also would have had new technologies like a 767-400ER cockpit instead of the classic 756 series cockpit. The 757-200X project was cancelled due to a lack of orders.

To me, comparing the 757-200X and the 757-Plus seem a little similar on paper. Both are trying to fill the same small (but of growing importance) niche of long range NB aircraft. Both sought to incorporate new technologies.

However, the 757-200X would have probably been more modest compared to the 757plus as the 757 was still being produced in 2000. Meanwhile the plus was envisioned in 2020, 15 years after the last 757 left the line.

What I think could be possible was that around 2008-2012 when FX seeked freighters to replace their 727 and when UA/CO/DL started using 757 on TATL more could have possibly pushed Boeing to incorporate new tech from the 787 program as well as give it the treatment of the 757-200X project of increased range and more modern cockpit. Then add in possible new control systems from the 787 and fuel saving devices like new wingtip devices and I think it would be one great aircraft.

But then begs the question, when exactly did Boeing “scrap the tooling?” Yes I asked it. I’m sure it was addressed in some kind of old thread for 8-15 years ago but times change. Things can be reanalyzed, as I myself have realized. This question needs to be answered in order to prove/disprove my dumb notion of a possible 2008 resurrection of the 757 using tech from the 787 and treatment from the 757-200X program. If Boeing scrapped the tooling in 2005 right after the last frame left the factory or even if they slowly dismantled it after receiving the last order, then this “2008 resurrection” is not probable. The 757-plus would also be improbable if this was the case.
I will go out on a limb and theorize. I think I may have heard that Triumph, a main supplier for 747-8 fuselage parts was pulling out of the 747 as early as 2019, which was the year that the 747 got zero new orders. If we compare this to the 757 tooling, then maybe suppliers started pulling out around late 2003 which may have been the last order.

Now let’s pretend that this never happened. What if FX/UA/DL/CO made the 2008 resurrection come true? In this case, I think it would be unfair to compare it to a A321 or even any narrow body, as it would be in a league of its own. This, let’s call it 75X would likely appeal to airlines who want to launch very long range routes with little demand. Using a hypothetical 5000 nmi range, this plane could reach even farther than the A321xlr and due to its monster performance, connect unexpected parts of the globe together.

Maybe they could have had a 757-100X, a -200X and a -300X to fill all niches as best as they could. Though the airframe might be very heavy compared to a 321XLR, I doubt that at that point they would be filling completely similar roles.

Ok, dreaming over. All of this is pure uneducated speculation, but isn’t this what the purpose of some threads are? To have fun. And not all of us are supersmart know it alls who can analyze the market perfectly. Sometimes we all need a little fun. I’m honest to admit, I am a freshman in high school, yet not a day goes by that I learn something new from here.

All, hopefully I added some things which we could use to keep the thread going and sorry for acting grouchy earlier.

questions wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

questions wrote:

I have found the comments very helpful in answering a specific question I had.

I appreciate those who took the time to write a thoughtful comment. I learned a few things I had not gleaned from other similar threads.

You clearly were not paying attention. Your need to exhibit poor behavior was greater than utilizing common sense and simply moving on to another thread of greater interest to you.

I hope you can find another forum in which your need to be big man on campus is met. It’s not around here.

Again, thanks to the other folks who responded in a helpful and informative way.

I am very very sorry for my bigotry! I should know better to not shut down peoples’ questions and rather contribute meaningfully. I made false assumptions based on the long standing semi-“hatred” of the 757-resurrection threads and I have failed to realize that times change and that people always are interested in re-analyzing things that may not have been obvious before. I am in no way an authority to speak for Anet and make assumptions and I am in no way a knowledgeable big shot figure. I am very sorry to the OP and anyone else if I sounded snarky so please accept my apology.

Now, back to the topic of the thread, I shall participate meaningfully. I remember there was this concept from 2020 called the 757-Plus which had a gigantic mega thread on here and a Reuters article but I never quite understood what the concept meant.
https://www.reuters.com/article/aircraf ... SL5N2CF5PN
viewtopic.php?t=1445405

To me it seems like they were “plussing” new technologies from aircraft like the 787 onto the basic frame of the 757 around the 757-300’s seating capability. That is just my own uneducated interpretation of the proposition but in the mega thread there were other ideas thrown around too.
To me it seems somewhat similar to the 757-200X treatment that was envisioned around 2000 or something. As others have indicated, it would’ve boosted the 757’s range to about 5000 mi (nmi or mi?). Also would have had new technologies like a 767-400ER cockpit instead of the classic 756 series cockpit. The 757-200X project was cancelled due to a lack of orders.

To me, comparing the 757-200X and the 757-Plus seem a little similar on paper. Both are trying to fill the same small (but of growing importance) niche of long range NB aircraft. Both sought to incorporate new technologies.

However, the 757-200X would have probably been more modest compared to the 757plus as the 757 was still being produced in 2000. Meanwhile the plus was envisioned in 2020, 15 years after the last 757 left the line.

What I think could be possible was that around 2008-2012 when FX seeked freighters to replace their 727 and when UA/CO/DL started using 757 on TATL more could have possibly pushed Boeing to incorporate new tech from the 787 program as well as give it the treatment of the 757-200X project of increased range and more modern cockpit. Then add in possible new control systems from the 787 and fuel saving devices like new wingtip devices and I think it would be one great aircraft.

But then begs the question, when exactly did Boeing “scrap the tooling?” Yes I asked it. I’m sure it was addressed in some kind of old thread for 8-15 years ago but times change. Things can be reanalyzed, as I myself have realized. This question needs to be answered in order to prove/disprove my dumb notion of a possible 2008 resurrection of the 757 using tech from the 787 and treatment from the 757-200X program. If Boeing scrapped the tooling in 2005 right after the last frame left the factory or even if they slowly dismantled it after receiving the last order, then this “2008 resurrection” is not probable. The 757-plus would also be improbable if this was the case.
I will go out on a limb and theorize. I think I may have heard that Triumph, a main supplier for 747-8 fuselage parts was pulling out of the 747 as early as 2019, which was the year that the 747 got zero new orders. If we compare this to the 757 tooling, then maybe suppliers started pulling out around late 2003 which may have been the last order.

Now let’s pretend that this never happened. What if FX/UA/DL/CO made the 2008 resurrection come true? In this case, I think it would be unfair to compare it to a A321 or even any narrow body, as it would be in a league of its own. This, let’s call it 75X would likely appeal to airlines who want to launch very long range routes with little demand. Using a hypothetical 5000 nmi range, this plane could reach even farther than the A321xlr and due to its monster performance, connect unexpected parts of the globe together.

Maybe they could have had a 757-100X, a -200X and a -300X to fill all niches as best as they could. Though the airframe might be very heavy compared to a 321XLR, I doubt that at that point they would be filling completely similar roles.

Ok, dreaming over. All of this is pure uneducated speculation, but isn’t this what the purpose of some threads are? To have fun. And not all of us are supersmart know it alls who can analyze the market perfectly. Sometimes we all need a little fun. I’m honest to admit, I am a freshman in high school, yet not a day goes by that I learn something new from here.

All, hopefully I added some things which we could use to keep the thread going and sorry for acting grouchy earlier.

Thanks for providing your helpful perspective.

All good! Hopefully I didn’t derail the thread and I’m glad that I was able to provide some insightful analysis, no matter how accurate.