Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Boeing 757

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
I

i fly boxes

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
848
In my opinion this plane is one of the best ever built. Why did Boeing not create a next gen version of this? The 737900 is such a dog and will never live up to the 757. It seems like a 757 with new engines would be a great plane
 
I think you answered your own question. When they shut the 75 line down, they had already made the decision to just grow the 737. You would have had basically 2 of the same aircraft on two seperate production lines.
 
IMHO I think Boeing pulled the plug too early on this airplane, in the post 9/11 downturn. It is great for mid-range, thin or leisure routes. East coast to secondary western European markets, west coast to Hawaii, etc. I have heard the -300 still has one of the lowest fuel burn/seats out there, making it great for high density/low yield markets like MCO or LAS. It seems like a 757NG would be a sure fire winner.
 
EMBPILOT1 said:
I think you answered your own question. When they shut the 75 line down, they had already made the decision to just grow the 737. You would have had basically 2 of the same aircraft on two seperate production lines.
Click to expand...

That is the point he is getting at though, the 737-900 is no where close to what the 757 is capable of. Certainly is a step up from the 737-800, but falls well short of the 757.
 
i fly boxes said:
In my opinion this plane is one of the best ever built. Why did Boeing not create a next gen version of this? The 737900 is such a dog and will never live up to the 757. It seems like a 757 with new engines would be a great plane
Click to expand...

An excellent question that I'm sure the engineers at Boeing ask themselves. The 757 would have been the airframe to keep as it has the height and undercarriage for the larger fans required on NG engines. That and the fact most everybody liked the 757.
Most likely a decision made by the accountants.
 
The 757-300 is supposedly the biggest money-maker at Delta on a per seat basis (RASM-CASM.)

My only complaint about the airplane is that, as with all Boeings, the cockpit is just too damn loud. Oh, and there's a yoke. Other than it's a pilot's airplane.
 
GogglesPisano said:
The 757-300 is supposedly the biggest money-maker at Delta on a per seat basis (RASM-CASM.)

My only complaint about the airplane is that, as with all Boeings, the cockpit is just too damn loud. Oh, and there's a yoke. Other than it's a pilot's airplane.
Click to expand...

Ding! Definitely a pilot's airplane. A passenger's airplane? Not so much....
 
GogglesPisano said:
The 757-300 is supposedly the biggest money-maker at Delta on a per seat basis (RASM-CASM.)

My only complaint about the airplane is that, as with all Boeings, the cockpit is just too damn loud. Oh, and there's a yoke. Other than it's a pilot's airplane.
Click to expand...
You need a yoke to actually FLY the airplane.
 
The Victors said:
You need a yoke to actually FLY the airplane.
Click to expand...

I assume you are making a slight at Airbus. The 777 and 787 are fly-by-wire. Do pilots "fly" them?

If I'm in cruise for 10+ hrs, I couldn't give a rats ass about being Chuck Yeager. It's all about quiet and comfort.
 
The Victors said:
Hope that computer (or pitot tube) never fails!
Click to expand...

The accident rate comparisons between Boeing and Airbus are a wash. Hope that rudder doesn't hard over/fuselage skin never blows a gasket ...
 
The bean-counters did the math and the savings was on the wall! As for a 757NG; sooped up efficient motors, paired with a sleaker/cleaner wing, with winglets, SFP and 737NG glass!

It's be one sexy B!atccch!!!
 
i fly boxes said:
In my opinion this plane is one of the best ever built. Why did Boeing not create a next gen version of this? The 737900 is such a dog and will never live up to the 757. It seems like a 757 with new engines would be a great plane
Click to expand...

I would assume that if there had been sufficient customer demand with a large amount of orders going out into the future to make the program profitable they would have kept it. The 737 family was getting the orders. They could put the aircraft back into production with an updated design if the demand was there I suppose but I don't imagine that would ever happen. Boeing has pinned their future on the 787 and the 737 family.
 
The Victors said:
You notice those aircraft were FLOWN to a safe landing? You're airbus pops a few CB's and you're just a passenger.
Click to expand...

You've just convinced me you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
 
I recall reading that Boeing shut it down due to lack of orders because everyone was ordering the cheaper less capable 737 family.
 
At the time Boeing axed the 757, their official reason was that with the introduction of the upcoming 787, there would be no more market for the 757. Between the longest 737 (the 900) and the short version of the 787, all seat capacities and ranges were covered. No economical reason to continue building it. That, and when the 787 was announced, airlines flocked to order it instead of the older, less fuel efficient 757.

That was Boeing's story, anyway. I don't know why they'd lie about it.

Bubba
 
The Victors said:
You notice those aircraft were FLOWN to a safe landing? You're airbus pops a few CB's and you're just a passenger.
Click to expand...

Could have sworn there were smoking holes near Pittsburgh and Colorado Springs due to rudder hard overs in Boeings. Are those your idea of a "safe landing"?
 
trip said:
An excellent question that I'm sure the engineers at Boeing ask themselves. The 757 would have been the airframe to keep as it has the height and undercarriage for the larger fans required on NG engines. That and the fact most everybody liked the 757.
Most likely a decision made by the accountants.
Click to expand...


Problem is like and cost are two totally different things. Everyone on here assumes that they just simply killed the 757 line cause they needed to grow the 737. Could it be the cost to maintain, spares, crew costs, operating costs, a new 757 design, and other factors were considerably more than the same for the 737? I'm not arguing your point about like, just a dollar point and in the end, whether we like it or not, is generally all that matters.
 
This is the sort of question one usually sees on sites like Jetphotos or Airliners.net. You know, questions like why there wasn't a 727-300/400, why Delta doesn't fly JAX-KBP non-stop, why peanuts are in red bags etc.
 
How come people that have never flown an airbus always hate on it so much? It's a great airplane. Now back to the original topic-I liked flying the 757 more and think Boeing made a huge mistake.
 
Good debate, I will agree that if you get the last row of a 757-300 the ride is miserable especially in turbulence but the airbus makes all kinds of wierd noises and chases itself in the descent if the pilot doesn't know how to manage it.
 
Last edited:
scoreboardII said:
Wow, this thread just left the pavement and is racing across the infield....
Click to expand...

This thread is in the catch fence..... My plane is better than your plane!!

Can we just go back to airline "unit" measuring??
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom