Much talk has been made here on A.net about how Boeing shouldn't have ceased production of the 757. However, what did people think when Boeing stopped making the Flying Pencil in 2004? Did most think that they were right, or was it the wrong move even back then? I'm mostly asking because I heard that demand for a MoM aircraft rose many years later, after the 757 ceased production.
I'm mainly asking what aviation analysts and other professionals thought, but enthusiasts' opinions are also welcome.

viewtopic.php?t=260561

Here was a thread at the time on here detailing the reactions of people at the time. Little did they know that the 757 would be the bane of threads on this site!

Such a shame they stopped production

I never had any love for the 757. For me they marked the transition all the airlines seemed to make out of flying widebodies on domestic routes.

It used to be a given that you would fly a DC 10, l1011, or 747 between any city on either coast. Once in a while you might have a 727 From Atlanta to the West Coast. But never a narrow body from New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Miami ….

The 757 change that period and I suppose I need to let go of the resentment now!

Boeing757100 wrote:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=260561

Here was a thread at the time on here detailing the reactions of people at the time. Little did they know that the 757 would be the bane of threads on this site!

Such a shame they stopped production

No airline was buying them, what was Boeing to do—build them and hope for a sale? It was too expensive to operate compared to the A320/B737 on domestic routes. I say that as an old B727 crew who couldn’t believe how little gas it burned. I got on the jump seat going KMKC, fueled to 27,000#, about 2/3rds of a 72 fuel load.

My impression of the 757 was that it took forever to get it boarded, and if one was stuck at the back, one could read half an Ayn Rand novel waiting to get off the blasted thing.

In my opinion saying Boeing shouldn't have ended 757 production is similar to saying Airbus should've kept A380 production alive

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=260561

Here was a thread at the time on here detailing the reactions of people at the time. Little did they know that the 757 would be the bane of threads on this site!

Such a shame they stopped production

No airline was buying them, what was Boeing to do—build them and hope for a sale? It was too expensive to operate compared to the A320/B737 on domestic routes. I say that as an old B727 crew who couldn’t believe how little gas it burned. I got on the jump seat going KMKC, fueled to 27,000#, about 2/3rds of a 72 fuel load.

I agree that Boeing was right to stop production at the time due to a lack of sales, but was there any way to know that demand for a midsize aircraft would rise in a few years?

WesternDC6B wrote:

My impression of the 757 was that it took forever to get it boarded, and if one was stuck at the back, one could read half an Ayn Rand novel waiting to get off the blasted thing.

Yes, it definitely took a while to board & deplane. Especially the 753 from what I've heard.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=260561

Here was a thread at the time on here detailing the reactions of people at the time. Little did they know that the 757 would be the bane of threads on this site!

Such a shame they stopped production

No airline was buying them, what was Boeing to do—build them and hope for a sale? It was too expensive to operate compared to the A320/B737 on domestic routes. I say that as an old B727 crew who couldn’t believe how little gas it burned. I got on the jump seat going KMKC, fueled to 27,000#, about 2/3rds of a 72 fuel load.

Lol, my last statement was sarcastic. Sorry if it wasn't obvious enough.

zrs70 wrote:

I never had any love for the 757.

Me neither. The cabin is identical in cross-section to the 737. Sure, some of the takeoffs on the 757 were a bit fun, but otherwise, I spent so many hours jammed in the back of those aircraft, my reaction was (and still is): "Good riddance!" Of course now that I get to sit up front more and also get in-flight internet, I mind them less, but they've never had the place in my heart that, say, the Mad Dogs or even the 727 did (the 727 was at least an interesting design and the cabin was so quiet if you were forward of the wings).

The other thing to remember is that a lot of the 757 love is very US-centric. Sure, a few European carriers took them (BA, IB, a few others) but they never took on the "backbone" status that they did in the US. Nor did they on any other continent. Interestingly, SQ operated them for six years and then got rid of them.

Boeing meant for the 757 to replace the 727, but while the 727 had broad, world-wide appeal the 757 never gained that kind of cache, and with the introduction of the A320, which could fly most of the regional routes on which airlines would otherwise use the 757, the 757 soon found itself stuck in a bit of an awkward position. Still, a production run of over two decades and 1050 copies is nothing to sneeze at.

But of the aircraft available today, give me an A320 over a 737 or 757 any day of the week.

It was a dark day for humanity, people cried out in anguish and riots ensued.

BoeingERJ1000 wrote:

However, what did people think when Boeing stopped making the Flying Pencil in 2004?

For me it probably was:

'Meh'

'Oh they were still making them?'

I doubt one in ten thousand of the general public took notice.

DocLightning wrote:

zrs70 wrote:

I never had any love for the 757.

Me neither. The cabin is identical in cross-section to the 737. Sure, some of the takeoffs on the 757 were a bit fun, but otherwise, I spent so many hours jammed in the back of those aircraft, my reaction was (and still is): "Good riddance!" Of course now that I get to sit up front more and also get in-flight internet, I mind them less, but they've never had the place in my heart that, say, the Mad Dogs or even the 727 did (the 727 was at least an interesting design and the cabin was so quiet if you were forward of the wings).

I agree. Honestly, aside from the takeoffs, there's nothing that sets the 757 apart for the passenger.

DocLightning wrote:

The other thing to remember is that a lot of the 757 love is very US-centric. Sure, a few European carriers took them (BA, IB, a few others) but they never took on the "backbone" status that they did in the US. Nor did they on any other continent. Interestingly, SQ operated them for six years and then got rid of them.

Boeing meant for the 757 to replace the 727, but while the 727 had broad, world-wide appeal the 757 never gained that kind of cache

Interesting. Why was the 727 more popular worldwide? I've heard that it had great performance on un-equipped runways/airfields, which was important during the 60s, when the Jet Age was still young. Could it have been that because airports were better equipped in the 80s, most airlines didn't need the 757's performance? Was it "too much plane?"

DocLightning wrote:

and with the introduction of the A320, which could fly most of the regional routes on which airlines would otherwise use the 757, the 757 soon found itself stuck in a bit of an awkward position. Still, a production run of over two decades and 1050 copies is nothing to sneeze at.

Again, did the A320 replace the 757 on regional routes because airlines didn't need all that performance? I'm asking because I've heard that some aircraft were "Too much plane" on certain routes (eg. 787 vs 767)

DocLightning wrote:

But of the aircraft available today, give me an A320 over a 737 or 757 any day of the week.

Or better yet, an E-Jet or A220. Better seat config + larger windows + wider seats.

WesternDC6B wrote:

I doubt one in ten thousand of the general public took notice.

I agree, most of the public don't know what aircraft they're flying on or what a certain type looks like, etc.

BoeingERJ1000 wrote:

Interesting. Why was the 727 more popular worldwide? I've heard that it had great performance on un-equipped runways/airfields, which was important during the 60s, when the Jet Age was still young. Could it have been that because airports were better equipped in the 80s, most airlines didn't need the 757's performance? Was it "too much plane?"

I suspect it was a combination of 1) options available at the time (there just wasn't a good 727 competitor) and 2) the 727 was suited to the airport infrastructure of the time. The high-mounted engines allowed it to use semi-prepared airfields and operate into airports with minimal ground equipment because the fuselage was so low to the ground. By the time the 757 rolled around, there was the 737 Classic and the DC-9 family, which were a better choice for the European market with its shorter legs. By contrast, for transcontinental US service, the 757 was ideal.

By the mid-1980s, Airbus had the A320, which could fly transcontinental routes in the US and cover essentially all of Europe with much less fuel burn than the 757 and also superior to the 737 Classic. Boeing had to scramble to catch up with the 737NG.

Well, with one of the highest ACNs around, the Boeing 727 never operated off semi-prepared airfields. But it did have good field performance, a feature designed into it for EA operations at the old KLGA before the piers. At a time where most planes it replaced had four engines, having three was new.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Well, with one of the highest ACNs around, the Boeing 727 never operated off semi-prepared airfields. But it did have good field performance, a feature designed into it for EA operations at the old KLGA before the piers. At a time where most planes it replaced had four engines, having three was new.

Continental’s Air Micronesia 727s used to operate into crushed coral runways in the Pacific

Were there gravel kits for them? I’ve been on sealed coral, sort of like a tarred road. Palau is paved, been there.

They had a Teflon coating underneath the fuselage and wings, don’t remember any other modifications, the wings protected the engines from FOD quite effectively