Back to Squawk list
  • 58

The Next Boeing Clean-Sheet Will Probably Be a 757 Replacement

A total of 1,050 757s were produced from 1981 to 2004, with the last aircraft delivered to Shanghai Airlines in November of 2005. The secondary market for the 757 has shown considerable strength, especially amongst cargo operators thanks to the aircraft’s capabilities. But passenger operators have steadily replaced the type with the Boeing 737-900ER and Airbus A321. ( さらに...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

flew the 757 for a short while. Best airplane ever built. Every US Legacy carrier operates them and most likely would have continued to purchase them if Boeing still made them. Perhaps they should have done a 757NG with reengineered engines.
Muchits 2
Boy I would LOVE to see that!! How awesome!
Never really understood why they stopped production altogether anyhow. I love the 757. Perhaps not as timeless as some of the other Boeing designs, but sexy in her own right and a thrill to fly(sim).
I LOVED flying on the 757 out of SNA! That climb was amazing.
It is a pilot's airplane
Well, supposedly the 767 was the successor and to a degree it is but in looks and performance, it can't hold a candle. The 757 is just a good looking, high stepping gal, and is downright graceful taking off.
Tabs 2
The 767 was actually created before the 757.
Yeah, there was almost a co-development; seems like the 767 actually hit the street close to a year earlier and I'm thinkin' that it was basically supposed to be the difference between a single aisle and wide body. In the pointy end, they carried the same type rating, requiring only a short transition to sit down in one. As far as the production thing, the 737 and the 767 just won out from a sales standpoint. Looks don't sell airplanes when the bean counters that buy them all look at numbers. That was all back in the 80's and I have slept since then. LOL
The 757 was outselling the 767, nearly a decade ago when the 757 was discontinued. In fact the 767 only surpassed the 757 in total deliveries last year.

The only Boeing models that the 757 outsold were the 767 and the 717 (the 717 wasn't even a Boeing plane, so the 767 was the only Bkeijg plane to be bested by the 757.

The 757 has outsold every Airbus model ever made, except the A320 and the A330. Like the 767, the A330 only surpasses the 757 last year, nearly a decade after the discontinuance of the 757. So you can say that the 757 outsold every Airbus model except the A320, while the 757 was available.

At over 1,000 planes sold, the 757 did a decent amount of business.
717 actually was in fact a Boeing product back in the very late 50's. It was the military counterpart to the 707. Had a different fuselage and different wing as well but still looked similar. When the Air Force redesignated it as a C-135 ( many variants of the 135...KC, WC, NKC, RC (not to be confused with a civilian 747flying along the no-fly line at night.....), Boeing retired the 717 designation until the 1990s when McDonald Douglass joined together with Boeing and produced a newer version of the S80.
The 757 and 767 were developed at the same time. But the 757 was outselling the 767 when the 757 was discontinued, even though 767 deliveries began before the 757. So the 757 was clearly selling better.

The longest 737s come close to replacing the 757 in capacity, even if it can't replace all the missions.

The 767 didn't really have a replacement until the similarly sized 787, that is currently filling that market segment.

If they decide there is a market for longer range narrowbodies, than a 757 replacement will be made. The 737 variants easily handle shorter and medium range needs.

The 787 handles the longer range efficiently in a widebody. If they decide to bring that extra efficiency to a narrowbody, that would be that clean sheet 757 replacement, that may come next decade.

Hopefully, that extra efficiency would increase payload, and more importantly range. The 757 occasionsly must make a gas stop on some transcontinental and trans Atlantic return legs. The extra efficiency would actually make such a replacement even more useful.
I know looks don't sell Airplanes when bean counters are buying them, but there is no comparison between a 757 and anything else in that department. LOL
It has much better performance than either 767 or 737, so can handle some situations better, such as hot or high airports or short runways.

The 787 should be a bit better in that regard. But I haven't done a comparison yet. I'll let you know of I do.
skylloyd 3
Because it would have created a conflict with the newly created next gen. 737's
skylloyd 1
Don't know how I wound up down here, but I was responding to Mr. Colescotts question.LOL
Management legume enumerators, or a couple of AB moles perhaps.
Flew the 757 many times flying to my concerts. Loved the vertical lift. I do not understand thrust and lift, but its assent was/is steep and thrilling. What power!!
I flew one for 24 years and it was like a racehorse getting off the ground and handling. While the 767 that replaced it is nice and roomier, there is no comparison to handling and performance and going down the taxiway, you feel like a superstar, riding high with those sleek looks and all. Even if they go to a full re-design, they need to keep the looks of that long legged gal. With all the advent of newer stuff and the call sign being downgraded to LARGE, it was fun running around in a big twin with HEAVY tagging your call sign. LOL
skylloyd 7
When I was a electrician at Boeing I helped put together the very first one (NA00!) it still flys today. When I would watch the 57 going down the runway it was if it was saying "get out of my way, I've got places to go" my favorite bird, next to the F-4.
LOL !!!! Good for you ,even though for passengers it is a bit tight, I hear the same story from pilots all over. JJ
Neil49 1
I'm wondering about your assertion that the 767 was the replacement for the 757. With almost simultaneous introduction, the two aircraft were designed for totally separate markets. The 67, with its wider and higher-capacity cabin, was aimed more at the transoceanic segment, as opposed to domestic and lower-density European and Asian traffic.

Did you perhaps mean the later versions of the 737?
It was OUR replacement. I spec'ed it before I retired. They took delivery a couple years ago. I got transitioned into it and then had it after coming back. While it is nice, it don't really compare. The noticeable is the response time on taxi and takeoff; not that the 67 doesn't have it but it is just not as responsive. After the RR engines were ETOPS certified in the mid 80's when we got ours, it went about anywhere our 707 did.
Wouldn't the old gal be sweet with a pair of GEnX's?!!
Like putting a late model Corvette LS1 in a '69 Chevelle!
That is an understatement. LOL
How's the wx out yor way? We got a couple inches, bout all at the house.
Finally cleared and getting halfway warm. My car got totaled by a falling tree but insurance settled good and I got another ride yesterday. I think you may have ice coming tonite. If it misses you, count your blessings.
Yeah I know. I'm right at the snow/ice line. My gilfriend lives just up the road in Hendersonville NC and she's got all snow. I have sleet/freezing rn mix. Hoping the power stays on! Ready for spring flying weather!! Stinks about your car! Glad you got fixed up quick. Take care ol pal.
Yeah, we were fortunate in that we never lost power. I have some gas heat so staying warm is not that big a problem but we are on well water and everything else is electric. I am debating on one of those whole house generators but man they are high and you know how tight I am. LOL
I have a 8000 watt honda.......and it is great during outages to run a few things and my well and always afew lights..those bigg units are more than one needs for outages.......and yes i can turn to wood heat during outages....nice to have some back up in the shop when i need it.......
Preacher,sorry for the interruption but a generator for the whole house is a must in snow country. When we moved to Maine a few years ago I bought one, 15KW and it runs on propane. Saved our butts a few times already, Wouldn't be with out one now. Just a thought.
From the California viewpoint, I used to think 'snow country' was somewhere North of the Mason-Dixon line. 12 degrees and ice storms in Raleigh NC makes me revise that thinking.
I know what you mean. I used to have generators when I was in the construction business, but for something you use once every two or three years..... Idk. Hampton Inn is three miles down the road!
Neil49 1
Thanks for the clarification, preacher. I knew there was an explanation!
Like I said, the 67 is nice but, while certainly not slow, it is kinda like the difference between driving a muscle car and a big caddy. The long, slim, high stepping looks are just something that don't go away.LOL
There's an old saying that if an airplane looks good, it will fly good. The 757 certainly does both.
I know Dl would buy some 753's if they could get Boeing to make them.
99NY 3
I thought the 739 was the replacement for the 757 - seems odd to reinvent a wheel you already have covered.
The article talks about a few things the 757 does that is not matched by the 739 or a321 series.
The article talks about a few things the 757 does that is not matched by the 739 or a321 series.

[This poster has been suspended.]

honza nl 1
mike, please go playing with your toys
Had the good luck to fly this fantastic A/C, when it first came out, in 1983. Have heard many descriptions of the -757, but my favorite two:
- "Every transport Boeing ever built looked like a Bomber; the "75" looked like a "Fighter"
-The best description of the "75" is a "a tall skinny blond with big tits"
I am a woman reading this. Please stop demeaning women. We are not your personal sex object. You probably have a mother, wife, daughter, sister, etc. I wonder if they know what a prick you are. On the other hand, if you are gay then you would probably be attracted to some of the transvestites in my neighborhood. They are the tall skinny ones with big breasts.
Some women would take it as a compliment. Guess its due to easily offended women like yurself that we cannot any longer call the place where pilots sit "the cockpit"!!!!! ;)
I think it is appropriately named the cockpit. Unless it is piloted by my cousin who is female and a C-17 commander.
When we had an all female Flight Crew we change it up and called it the "Box Office".
You probably heard this one already but it bears repeating. Imagine 2 women in the cockpit. Not good........ What if one of them has to go to the bathroom?????
Yes...heard it, MrBill. 2 women in the cockpit is going to be a great fly. Hey...the boys had to go to the "Blue Room"...what's the diff? I've flown with several women and they can land a "Heavy" like it was a Cessna 172. Just kissing the pavement.
The difference is what the joke is all about. When a man needs to visit the bathroom, the man next to him doesn't usually need to accompany the person who initiated the statement to use the bathroom in the first place. Maybe its one of those aviation jokes that went "over your head"!!!!!
No..I got it and never thought it was funny.
One more quick story concerning the 75. At SXM, we would purposely line up as close to the end as possible. Then I'd do a static MAX power takeoff (tailwind of course). Most of my F/Os were not familiar with the Air Force term of "static takeoff". Basically stand on the brakes, run up the engines to about 80%, then let go and hang on. Probably ended up with quite a few spectators tumbling across the sand on the beach and into the drink!!! Really impressed my F/Os with this static takeoff thing. If you like to see what SXM is all about go to St Maartin Sunset Beach website.. One of the best Caribbean layover spots in the system.....or it used to be anyway......
Great comments, I love that aircraft too, my first choice for narrow-body long range flying.. To beat the cost/perf of the 737-900 or the A321, Boeing needs to maybe shrink the 787 because a clean sheet aircraft would be too costly.
078538 1
I have worked 75's since they came to my airline, it is the sexyist hotrod ever to come to commercial airlines. from flt crews to mechs, it is a joy to be around. I have presently had to opportunity to work with our Airbus rep on the new arrival of the A319 and A321T, not fully impressed yet but great guys. The head Airbus rep has told me that Toulouse threw a party when Boeing finally quit making the B757, that flat had nothing to compete or beat it....period!
Well said! For me I was in a state of mourning. Stretching it and getting new engines could have given it new life. Still......fuel capacity would have still been a limiting factor.
The 757, THE most graceful and beautiful lookin of all the airliners as well as bein the "Ferrari" of the skies, needs to be reborn to fill that 5% of Trans Atlantic single aisle airline sales left on the shelf. So what if it was a little noisy on take off. Hot rods are loud, never bothered me. That plane purrs at cruise. Why do a clean sheet when you can revamp it with new avionics,customer comfort amenities, power plants,the new innovative integrated flaps,ailerons,slats,elevators and rudders with no sharp edge vortexes and no flap track boats that Boeing is aggressively testing as we speak. They can do it faster and easier than a clean slate aircraft without biting into their 737 biz. Call it the "B757B" or the "757 Max". WE WANT IT BACK! DO IT BOEING! KICK SOME @$$ AGAIN!
You're thinking a 757 MAX. The article us thinking more like a mini 787 Dreamliner (shaped like a 757) for thinner international routes.

You're right that the simpler redesign could be done quicker and cheaper. The newer plane would be a solution for a much longer time. It would give airlines a better plane from an operational standpoint.
fred cox 1
I used to be a flight attendant for Eastern. I worked the very first flight EAL had with the 757 out of ATL. Was 1984. A much better designed aircraft for the crew too.

The first thing I noticed was the steep angle of attack on take off relative to the 727 and the 9's Eastern had. It was like a rocket.

I travel for business some now and I still love the 75. Especially boarding through L-2 to business class. I will miss it.
Loved the ascent on the 757. Am not a pilot, so do not know the reason (other than pure power)why the 757 leaped off the runway and was at 3000 feet in 20 sec.
Having flown the 757 for 5 or 6 years I find myself liking it to driving my wife's Mini Cooper Clubman. It is quick, and responsive, but the ride was the worst in of any airplane I am type rated in; well, until I got in the 777. The 767 is so much nicer, it is hard to figure just what Boeing did to those two. Don't get me wrong, I loved flying them all as well as the "DCs" and in less than a week will be my last trip and I already miss it. To all of you will still be flying airliners enjoy it, it is the best work you can get.
I have flown all the Boeing from 727-777 except the 737. By far, the most fun airline to pilot was the 757-200 with the RR engines. Excellent performer out of the ski airports and the shorter fields like SNA and LGA. The brakes were excellent. I t was/is a sports car with wings. Sad to see such a fine bird go away.
There are about 800 757's in service right now. But what's happening is the airlines are lining up to purchase the 737-900ER. It seats as many as 220 pax and is definately more fuel efficient than the 757. As impressive as the 757 isn't pax friendly and it's not Flight Attendant friendly.
I don't have any figures on which of the 57 and 67 i less costly to operate. They have the same engines and flight controls and as Neil49 states they came out at the same time . I prefer the 7 abreast is only one more seat across. Air Canada used it on long domestic routes as well as the ER version on international routes. Bev and I like the 2-3-2 setup because you only have to crawl over your own mate thus don't bother a stranger when taking a break. The 57 is sure a lot longer and looks nicer but the 67 is my favouite.
Very interesting reading your comments - I always thought the 757 looked sleek but I'm a single engine jockey, no idea what it is like flying the big ones. Thanks for sharing!
I had the privilege of riding in a 757 for my first commercial airline flight (that I was old enough to remember; technically my first was at age 4). I've only been on 737s and Super80s in the 15 years since. Back then I didn't appreciate just how awesome and unique that 757 takeoff is! I hope to experience it again one day but since I fly mostly Southwest my chances are limited and shrinking by the year.
Didn't c it mentioned anywhere so I'll add in this. The 75 had the best thrust to weight ratio than any other aircrft out there, excluding military airplanes of course. I flew them my entire 26 year career except for 6 years on the LA sewer pipe and 3 years on the 3 holer. As someone had mentioned earlier u had 2 just love those SNA departures. But one day we got to do an unrestricted climb taking off to the north. It was a short flight to To SFO. Very little fuel and half full cabin. Pulled the nose up to 30 degrees and it was still Accelerating. Could easily overspeed the flaps on retraction which ended up being a real problem at our company. Unfortunately the company changed the rules years later and restricted the deck angle to 20 degrees due to their concern over fuel pumps being uncovered at high angles. Of course this was already in the minds of folks who noticed fuel pressure lights brightly illuminating at hi deck angles!!!!!
I have flown as a passenger on every type of commercial aircraft in the last 30 years with 1400+ flights. I do everything I can to avoid the 757. As a passenger I have found it to be the most uncomfortable aircraft ever built regardless of airline flying it. Hope Boeing develops a great replacement for the 757 where passenger comfort matters and the airlines will let tall passengers have a few extra inches of legroom instead of going for the sardine effect.
+1. Agreed, one of the most uncomfortable aircraft I had ever flown in. As a frequent flyer, I dreaded flying in it and tried to avoid it whenever possible. However, UAL used them a lot from IAD to the west coast.
I agree with both of you. As a frequent flyer, I always tried to avoid the 57s - when flying Economy - due to the "most uncomfortable seats ever" inside an airplane. However, I loved those powerful engines when taking off! I felt I was inside a 747 taking off. Those 2 powerful engines on the 57s made me feel safe flying that aircraft, that is why, when I knew I was flying F/C, I always looked for a flight on a 57. And, when flying in the front cabin, that experience was the best - great space, comfortable seats and on a powerful plane, combination BOIENG excels at. Airbus will NEVER be able compete with that!
Yes. It will happen and she will be replaced. The 757 was the first jet that slammed me back in my seat after rotation. She shot up like a missle with the angle of attack. On a light payload we were at 40,000 feet within a few minutes and were just short of going into "Orbit"! Great Airplane. Unfortunately, not making the grade as far as the demands of the flying public. Cramped. The 737-900ER will deliver what the 757 couldn't. Personnally, the 757 will be missed but the "rookies" will prevail.
The 757 and the 767 first started out as the 7N7 and the 7X7. The 757 was to replace the 727 and started out as a t-tail. Then Boeing went on a weight reduction program, and that is when Boeing went to the conventional tail. After that, the 757 and the 767 looked so much alike, Boeing then went to the FAA to get a common type rating. The rest is history.
The 757 will stay operative for the next 20 years, mostly as a second-hand converted freighter as the streched DC-8s were until 2010-11. It is among the most silent aircraft ever built, specially the RR engine-equipped units.
Muchits 1
757 is a true joy to fly! I would love to see a true replacement coming over the next decade. The 737-900 is a nice aircraft, but it just doesn't have the 757 performance and feel.
It would appear as if most of the commentators sat up front. These were the most uncomfortable aircraft from a passenger's point of view. Cargo doesn't need or want comfort so it's a heck of a good freighter.
The 75 is/was a Pilot's airplane in every regard - certainly when it carried the big RR engines. Performance, handling, advanced (for its time) cockpit were superb. I always felt that, from the pilot standpoint, it was the transport version of the A-4 Skyhawk!

While all that was true, passengers were nowhere near as impressed. The long narrow tube with 6 across made the back half of the cabin awfully claustrophobic feeling. That was especially evident in the longer ER legs the airplane was capable of. That reaction, coupled with the comparative operating costs signaled the airplane's doom. The same configuration remains in the 737-900 and the AB-321 but modern interior furnishings have helped make those airplane's interior's more attractive.

Had it not been for Boeing's dedication to Herb and SWA, a state-of-the-art modernized version of the 757 would have been a great success for Boeing in the late 90's, replacing the entire 737 and 757 family. I don't think the AB 321/319 would have stood a chance in that comparison.

As an aside, I found the Mr. Bhaskara's dismissal of the fleet and contract differences in his comparison of UAL 737-900 and USAir AB-321 rather ignorant. When the $/hr differences are as small as they are, an honest comparison would have required a controlled adjustment for those factors, no ?
707, 747, 757 three of the best looking planes Boeing has ever built and three of the hardest planes to replace. Just which plane replaced the 707 . Was it the 747, the 757 or the 737 with the hub and spoke system. It really depends on the airline your discussing.

The 737-800 & 900 with their greater capacities and extended ranges is what
I believe did in the 757. What ever Boeing comes up with has to have greater capacit & range and be more fuel efficient. Maybe the original 757-300ER with carbon fiber construction. Maybe a slightly wider body to allow for a second aisle with 2 extra seats in coach and 1 in first or business. Up grade the flight managment system and the new lighting system .
why not use the 787-3?
Boeing decided against making the 787-3. Not enough interest.

Guess, they could dust off the plans if there was sufficient interest down the line.

A narrower gauge fuselage might be more efficient than a widebody. So there may be a market for a narrowbody with better efficiency for the thinner longer routes.

But yes, the two options are:
1. A shorter 787, eg . 787-3
3. A longer and more powerful 737 with more range, eg. a 757 replacement.
How about just adding to the 757 design? Its perfect because the 757 can cross the atlantic and the a321 or 900ER cannot.
I agree with you that it's perfect, dimensionally speaking. However, I think in order to take advantage of the advanced materials (CFRP) and engine technologies that have been introduced since the inception of the 757 program, you need to consider it a clean sheet.
It probably should be a clean sheet on account of all that but the really need to stay with the looks and performance. To do so it will pretty much have to stay single aisle. Even the 37's have a fat or bloated look.
The A321 and the B737-900ER can both cross the Atlantic without ferry tanks.
Yeah they can. I don't know about the bus but I think the 738 and probably the 739 is ETOPS certified for 180 min at least, maybe more, but nobody is running the International right now. Seem like SWA pushed for the cert in prep to start flying South out of HOU, not sure.
Watched a video the other day on youtube and saw a British Airways A321 at JFK, see American and United 757's at Manchester all the time.
A321? Perhaps you are thinking of the pinstripe Express (A318 LCY JFK all club world seating) that links the two major financial hubs. Has to stop in SNN for fuel though....
skylloyd 1
Don't know about the 900 ETOPS cert, but deliverys out of Seattle they take the northern route,with all 37 deliverys, stopping in Halifax for gas.
why not use the 787-3 ?
I always hated 757s!! Who wants to cross the Atlantic on a 3-3 eating arrangement??
Climb over 2 people to get up--NO way!! And only 2 aisle seats out of 6, whereas the 767 has 4 out of 7!! The 2-3-2 is superior in every way fro a pax standpoint, especially when traveling with someone!!
You won't like AA's new 773 & 77W config in Y then! 3-4-3 in the same width they used to have 2-5-2 on the 772. Ouch!
I flew on the 757 as a flight mechanic, it was a hot rod and reliable. Those RB211's let it climb like a home sick angel.


アカウントをお持ちではありませんか? 今すぐ登録(無料)!機能やフライトアラート、その他様々な設定をカスタマイズできます!