Skip the waitlist and invest in blue-chip art for the very first time by signing up for Masterworks: www.masterworks.art/cobyexplanes Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more. See important Masterworks disclosures: www.masterworks.com/cd
I am a former employee of Boeing from the 1990's and have some insight on the 757. The 757 was designed as a high performance aircraft to operate in high density altitude conditions, and the tall landing gear allowed a greater angle of attack rotation without a tail strike, thus getting the plane off the ground. The 757 also used a lot of expensive materials like Aluminium-Lithium and Titanium which are very costly to work with. The 757 is a master piece of aeronautical engineering, but just became too pricey to transport passengers from point A to point B.
I appreciate your comment. It perfectly reflects how Boeing perceives and values passengers. It reflects the corporate philosophy and thus also the debacle of the 737 MAX. And thus the core problem of the company.
Interesting comment. Boeing was a respectful and prestigious company. But today that company is a normal and has mainly outdated products. Except with the B787. Airbus took the lead 5 years ago and will hold it for 10 more years. Or more. Boeing made too many bad decisions and will pay a high price for that.....
@@patrickpeters2903Airbus’ revolutionary products are really just the A220 and A350 though, the A320/330neo are also just reengined 80’s designs. I’d even argue that the 777X is more revolutionary than the A330neo.
@@jatterhog Boeing's problem are not their products but the internal philosophy and the approach and value of safety and quality. You currently have not one new product that does not have any quality defects for years now.
@@jatterhog did I say that Airbus planes are revolutionary priducts??? No but Boeing screwed temselves by stopping a very good B757 without any replacement. And made the horrible B737 Max. 2 very bad decisions. Making Airbus the king in the single aisle market. Boeing gave the opportunity to Airbus. The Boeing management is very very very bad...
The 757 is one of those planes that we all hold close to our hearts, praying that the airlines hold onto them forever, there is nothing like a 757, and nothing will ever get the fan base like the 757 has.
The only drawback of the 757-300 is that if you are seated in the back-end of the plane and you are making a connection, you may not make the connecting flight because many airports in the U.S. only use a single boarding bridge.
Simple: notify the crew of your connection. Some airlines will make it possible to get such folks off the aircraft first or reseat them closer to the front in available unsold seating.
757-300 was called the flying pencil due to the ratio of its length to width. It was also designed for hub and spoke concept rather than point to point.
@@davecer6578 Yes, plus it has a huge wing. Hence a lot of fuel, low wing load, high thrust-to-weight... you get a "fighter jetliner". No wonder airline pilots love it! On the other hand, I once flew from Iceland to Seattle on 757 economy with Iceland Air - it was... to put it mildly, unpleasant experience. My knees were hitting the back of the seat in front of me(I'm 5'11", nothing special), there were no food on almost 8 hours flight, very basic snacks wee offered at exorbitant prices... The only positive moment of the flight was the take-off: 11 seconds from the beginning of the roll to being airborne! Less than half of the time it normally takes with other airliners elsewhere!!!
Iceland Air is a special use case. But so was the 757 from the beginning. The main issue now is, the A321XLR has already soaked up most of the possible orders. Any competitor will have to think twice if they can sell enough of their own designs. Interesting enough, the airlines using the 757 within the USA and are looking for a replacement have not really committed to the A321XLR. However, Airbus at least managed to sell some to them.
lets hope that its not too late for Boeing by then. If they really only want to introduce their next aircraft in the 30s, then Airbus will have an even larger market share. Already know Boeing is struggling .
Another hurdle for a theoretical 757max is that if Boeing decides to build it, Airbus would likely respond with a stretched and further range extended A321, basically becoming the "A322." Airbus doesn't even have to outsell the 757max to beat it. All it needs to do is take away enough sales such that it won't be able to break even. Meanwhile, the A322 won't cost as much to develop since the A320 production line is chugging along nicely, so there's virtually no risk for Airbus to respond to a 757max.
This is kinda how the 747-8 killed the A380. The 747-8i never beat the A380 in terms of outright sales numbers, but since it didn't cost Boeing as much to develop it, they were fine with cannibalizing the VLA (very large aircraft) market just to make sure that the A380 won't be lucrative for Airbus.
Boeing has an ace in the hole: The "737-10 (or an 11) MaxXLR". :) Additional fuel tanks would give it increased range. A slight increase in engine power and now Boeing has an A321XLR competitor for not much money.
the NMA was supposed to be the successor but during the corruption that lead up to the max mcdonnell execs wanted to cut costs and make the max instead. i work at boeing and everyone here hates that the project got pulled but i could see it being revived…. hopefully
How does Boeing dig out of this hole? They haven’t had a profitable quarter for years now, I don’t see how they could possibly take on the expense of a new clean sheet airplane design if they aren’t even making money. And Airbus isn’t even letting off the gas. They have a huge line-up of models for the small market, a220, a319, a320, a321 and a321XLR; whereas Boeing only has Max variants -8 and -9. The -10 still isn’t available and -7 is years behind. Even then, the -10 can’t match the range of the a321XLR and the -7 can’t beat the cost of the a220. Is this checkmate Airbus?
Maybe 767 MAX or 767X (based on the 767-200 and 300 sizes) is a good choice. It's a great topic for the next video. The 767-200 has practically the same capacity as the 757-300. The 767-300 even taps into another size category that also has no competition. The 767-400 is a no-go because it overlaps with the smallest variants of 787 and A330neo. Forget about the 757-200 size, which is already occupied by the A321XLR. Most importantly, 767 freighters are still being produced, so the tooling, logistics and expertise is still here, unlike the 757. There are great engine options for the 767X in the form of GEnx and Trent 1000. The same can't be said for 757 MAX. Remember, no engine, no plane. Moreover, 767X has, what I call, the wide-body advantage, one more seat can be stuffed into each row that the manufacturer intends (8-abreast 767X), much like those 9-abreast A330 and 10-abreast A350. You just can't make a 4-3 seat configuration narrow body aircraft (except for that horrible Hawker Siddeley Trident of Channel Airways).
I absolutely think too that Boeing should have upgraded the 767, already years ago. The fitting engine is already there for a long time: the GEnx-2B of the 747-8. The 767 is a category on its own and could fly certain routes, especially a large part of lower demand North Atlantic routes, much more efficiently than a 787 or A330.
@@widget787 I flew on a 767 from Tokyo Haneda to Osaka and can totally say that I would prefer to fly on aan upgraded 767 to a single aisle a321 over the atlantic or as another mid to long range option. I know some 767's still do that but are getting old and arnt as efficeint anymore. I understand why the a321 lxr niche exists but honestly I cant see that flight range being comfortable and a smaller 767 fills that niche will.
That wouldn´t quite work. The issue is that while the 767-200 on paper have the same capacity, in reality it have a broader class breakdown. Its also designed for much longer range, making it uneconomical for short and medium range service.
The only 767 Boeing build today are the C46 Tanker and 767 Freighter. Even though this airplane was design in the late 70s and early 80s many of the newer parts are up to today's CAD/CAM and MBD standard therefore a design point of view it makes sense however from a business perspective, there are simply no demand for a 767 passenger airplane. Given the track record of Boeing in the past 20 years I can understand why they are reluctant to burn a bunch of capital which they don't have, just to launch a new airplane program.
@@Liberty2358 I think differently. Many Airlines, especially the big US Airlines, are looking for a 767 sized airplane. The 767 served a market on its own and there is no airplane to fill that role. There are either the bigger, much heavier and way too performant 787-8 and A330-800 or the much smaller A321XLR that by the way cannot fly any significant amount of cargo. The 767-300 is perfectly sizes for a huge number of thinner North Atlantic markets. United, just a few years ago, was even ready to order newly built 767-300ERs (non modernized, 1988 style original 300ERs). After waiting for years what Boeing comes up with or not (797, 767X ...) they finally ordered a large number of 787s to replace the 767, which is not an ideal replacement. Same with Delta, A330-900s are far from a perfect replacement for the -300ER. Sure, 5 years ago prospects for a 767X were better, but I think even today it looks good. We shall not forget the 767F which would receive a X upgrade too. The 767 is a amazing midsized freighter in all aspects, plus with it's wingspan it fits into the positions at the mega hubs of FedEx, UPS etc.
I think going ahead with the 797/NMA might have been a better idea than ramming the 737MAX through. I note in your recent brilliant video with Boeing at PAS23, the MAX-10's 2000L larger fuel capacity than the baseline A321neo is brought up, and it goes blissfully unmentioned that whilst this is true, it also has 400nm LESS range. That's quite poor. I think once you're having to get CFM to decrease the efficiency of the engines to fit them under the wing the aircraft has effectively become an open casket funeral for an ageing design. It's a great plane don't get me wrong, but it's hamstrung by a baseline design that hails from the 60s, and I can't help feeling if Boeing had just let Airbus take some of the market with the Neo and pressed ahead with the NMA, they might be in a better position today. Still, at least we'll get a NASA TTBW at the next clean sheet, shame they keep the intellectual property rights to it so the rest of the industry won't benefit...
More obstacles to upgrading to the 757 were a result of Airbus and Boeing getting access to super high-bypass turbofans: CFM LEAP 1A and Pratt GTF engines for the A320neo and LEAP 1B engines for the 737MAX families, all to compete against Bombardier's CSeries (now the A220). With more non-static takeoff thrust from those larger engines, A321neo family now can climb faster and has somewhat better runway performance to access more airfields with shorter runways.
I think this would had been a hurdle. There was no and none planned in the thrust range the 757 required. With the C-17 ceasing production there isnt a military angle for new engines neither. Only chance would had been if the US military wanted to re-engine the C-17 at this point.
I note Sanspotter's vision of the 75X which was a great video.. When you say, 'Boeing almost decided to build an advanced 757' ... there's still time. I as a passenger recall that takeoff's were very gradual and comfortable. Between the 737-10 and 787-800, there is this mid-market single aisle slot. The 757 comfortably flew flights that stressed the 727-200 range with better economics. 757s cargo bins were unable to use the containers which he A320 family and wide-bodies use. 737s are also bulk loaded, piece by piece.
Because the 757 was ahead of its time when it was released. The production line of the 757 is dismantled and after they fucked up the Max, they don't have enough cashflow to even reengine the plane, let alone rebuild the production line.
I loved the 757 since it appeared at the SLC airport I worked at 1987 under its test flight loaded with all its test equipment aboard. I even have photos of it dressed in Eastern Airlines logos.
It might have been the right call but as an avgeek I would have to say it’s a shame they did not. The 757 is gorgeous, can you imagine it with the Max-wingtip, LEAP engines with Sheffrons and so fourth? It’s kind of the same like I’d looooove to see a A340 being revamped.
I think the main reason Boeing didn't build the 757 Max now is engine technology I don't think there's anything on the market in the 40,000 plus range that can replace either the RB-211 or PW2000. everything is either too small or too big.
I don't think its a big issue. While there is no real replacement for 757 engine but making new engine based on GEnx tech isn't going to be too hard. 757 max may also use UltraFan by Rolls-Royce that designed to be scalable.
Question is not about possibility or difficulty, but profitability. The GEnx core is way too big. The only thing that is "scalable" on the UltraFan is the gear box. In the event Rolls Royce is starting at the huge end of fan diameter, with no product in the pipe as yet. If we are still looking for a 40 to 43,000 bound thrust range, we are not looking for a much bigger fan, but a (10:1) deeper fan AND a core smaller than RB-211 or PW2000. With only 1000 or so 757 models ever built, maybe we do not need (1) short field performance, (2) hot and high capability AND (3) long legs, why airlines are opting for A-321 or possibly 737-10 to suffice in a few roles. I think idea to put fuel in the skin of the airplane is Airbus stupidity, not genius. By the time they get it "safe" it will be too heavy. What I wonder about instead is what might be easier in a 767-Max study, or a 767 do-over, new airplane.
I tend to agree, although every analysis I have read on that approach concludes that the narrow body version would have been too expensive to succeed in the marketplace. They absolutely could have topped the A321 XLR in every performance metric, but would that have been enough to beat it in orders? I guess we’ll never know.
@@jamesbean1962 They could also have pilot cross over from the 787, making it more flexible for future costumers. While yes, it would be annoying and expensive in the short run to educate pilots, in the long run it would be cheaper having commonality
No, the business partners and supply chain model for this program is a joke, years behind schedule and billions over budget and lets not get started with the quality control problems. Before the 787 Boeing never has this magnitude of delay. Unfortunately this new found incompetence has bled into the 777-X program, once the cancer has infected the corporate culture there is only one possible outcome without drastic treatment.
A lot of Boeing's woes have snowballed from the extra long production cycle of the 787 Dreamliner. I worked for an Aerospace company during that time that made components for Boeing aircraft. Boeing's original timetable for the 787 put EIS in 2008. After that, we were told we would be supplying components for Yellowstone 1 (Y1), Boeing's then-secret clean sheet design project to replace the 737, which was estimated to go through a product development cycle from 2009-2013. As it turns out, by the time Boeing finally got the 787 flying, airlines like American were forcing Boeing's hand to develop a new small aircraft that would be available by roughly the same time the A320 Neo would be EIS. So, Y1 was scrubbed in favor of Maxxing the 737, which probably wouldn't have happened if Boeing hadn't fallen flat on their face with the 787 development cycle.
I’m surprised this isn’t being said more. I think the 787 is where Boeing lost the plot. Sure it is innovative, but had they focused on what already worked, ie the 777, 767, 757 and the 737, I believe they would be doing just fine right now. Boeing still hasn’t even broken even on the 787.
company I work for is still has all our 757 molds. we just made a new tailstrike bumper cover a few weeks back. Boeing contracts out to companies who contract out to companies who contract out to companies, if Boeing orders it it will be made they dont even have to arrange shipping. they are not verticly integrated so they dont need to actively build a supply chain, just ask for bids and let other companies figure out how to get it to them on time.
I would definitely love to see them Re-engine and Redesign the wing a bit . And hopefully make it more fuel efficient. 😂 and for the love of all that is holy stop stretching the 737.
For better or worse, I think the 737 is about as stretched as it's ever going to get. The -10's landing gear had to be given a special "stretching" do-cracky to let the plane rotate without striking its tail.
I, too, love that overpowered beastie, the 757. I do remember some yak last year about using some parts of the 757's original plans to build a 737 replacement, but ... we'll see. As far as the expense of travel. I spend a lot of time outside the U.S. I have another trip coming up in the August/September timeframe which will cost me nearly 30% more than a very similar trip taken in February. However, I'm attributing those price increases to, literally, gouging customers as post-COVID travel's increased and the vendors lost significant amounts of money over the past nearly three years. They're now trying to make that up.
757 - what an airplane! Everyone loves it. Every pilot wants to fly it. I love flying a Bus but I do love the 757 (it’s the only Boeing I would consider flying). It is the performance king! Only airplane you can fully load up, takeoff on a short runway, fly forever, and then land on a short runway. Consider it the sports car of airliners. The rumor has always been Boeing destroyed the jigs to make the airplane so they can’t make anymore and they are too risk adverse to make a new one. Airbus 320 family - it’s just comfortable. If you fly it you love it. The cockpit is big and comfy. It’s a pleasure to fly, nothing fancy.
This is what Boeing should’ve done from the very start. They should’ve scrapped the Boeing 737 MAX altogether because if they couldn’t extend the landing gear, then the whole plane had to go!
Hey man, I will say a few things about your video one I love the 757 it’s the smoothest ride on an airplane I’ve ever had and I’ve been on a lot of different ones from airbus and Boeing. I am I guess when you can consider a frequent flyer second of all I work in the manufacturing, part of the world and for Boeing to create at 7:57 max today would actually be easier than 30 years ago and it’s something that they will have to consider because Airbus has now the a 330 and A340 and A350. It would be very smart of Boeing to make a 757 max because the dream liner is a little too big to compete in that market. But then again, this is my opinion and I don’t stated as fact like you do in your video I do not know what your background is and where you get your information from.
In a nutshell Airbus got the best of Boeing by building a cheaper, slower inferior aircraft that burns less fuel. Now that said, the plane still sold a good number of units despite being more expensive. Those same airlines are begging Boeing to make a replacement even with the knowledge that it will be more expensive. The plane would likely address a different market need and would offer airlines capabiloties that the A321 cannot such as being able to carry more cargo which could end up offsetting the price.
@@scottanno8861 No, its primary flight controls use mechanical cables which control hydraulic actuators as opposed to the 737 which uses mechanical cables which directly control the control surfaces and hydraulic boosters or the A320 which uses electrically controlled hydraulic actuators, except for the rudder which uses cable controlled hydraulic actuators.
One of the major problems with the Flying Pencil is that the landing gear had to be extremely tall to be able to accommodate the engines. It was a major design effort to figure out how to get them to fold up. The engines on the 757 are puny compared to the ones today, so that would just exasperate the landing gear problems.
The 757 has another problem if it is meant to compete against the whole A320 family instead of a 737: it's weight. The 757-200 weighs almost 10 tons more than a almost similar sized A321, mainly due to its huge wing which is 50% larger than on the A321. So a 757-100 competing against the A320 with the current wing would be extremely overweight and not efficient enough. In my opinion the 757 is not there to replace the 737, it's complementing the 737. I always saw the 737 and the 757 as one family, just like 737 and 727 before. 737 for smaller capacity, short haul flying and 757 for longer haul and higher capacity plus high performance. The 737 can't cover all of this. Looking back it was a big mistake to discontinue 757 production, but I can understand Boeings decision back then. Now they wish they would have not discontinued it. A re-engined 757-200, without any other major improvements, would already beat the A321XLR hands down in terms of range. Even a re-engined 757-300 would probably come close to the A321XLR range. Now imagine a "757-250" which has around the range of the XLR but 20-25 extra seats. That one would absolutely kill the XLR. But two problems: on shorter routes these upgraded 757s could not complete against the A321 in terms of efficiency and if Boeing upgraded the 757 Airbus would immediately start working on a new, bigger wing on the A321.
As an experienced B737 Series, B757, B767, A320 series pilot amassing over 27000 hours, I confess the 757 is the best performing people hauling frame out there today. Though uncompetitive in some markets, and the ONLY airframe to haul max pax and bags long haul, the 757 is the glue that holds the commercial passenger business model to ALL MARKETS together. We kick off pax and bags all the time in the 320 series…only greater than 6 hour flights with weather in the 757 ever thought that compromise. I sat in the back with a recent retired Boeing 757 Chief Engineer and he confirmed the idiot management decisions with choosing the 1958 designed based 737. I promise you that the bribes that Boeing has given to congress will make us U.S. taxpayers foot the bill to bail Boeing out.
If I was an Airline CEO I would opt for the 757 NG over the A321. It may be 10mil more but it has longer range and is far more versitile as well as having viability as a cargo plane.
Then your airline might go bust. Unless most of your routes need the xtra range a modified 757 might give you the extra fuel costs due to the 1970’s aerodynamics of the 757 will kill you. As to cargo the same applies you can now get 757 and A321 cargo conversions and in the future be able to get A321neo conversions.
@@ATH_Berkshire You do know I was talking about when the plane was being considered in the video right? You also know the 32x series of aricraft are not these brand new wonder machines when they were first considered too right? Whiche was not many years after the 757. It could have easily been updated if Boeing wanted too to modern standards like Boeg and airbus did with the 737 MAX and A32x NEO series and would have likely outclassed the 321 XLR on the middle market long range routes. Also the A32x series is not nearly as Rugged as the 757 or 737 series for cargo ops.
I'm a fan of the alternate history where Boeing built a new midrange airplane instead of the 737-max, bought the Bombardier C series (now Airbus A220) and retired the 737, with those two new planes taking the top end and bottom end of its market respectively. But I don't know how commercially viable this plan would have been. The 737 needs to die. It just doesn't have the ground clearance for modern engines to fit without all sorts of compromises.
It will be a while before the 737 dies. When it comes to price the 737 can't be beat. Boeing knows how to build them cheap and developing updated versions also seems to cost them relatively little. Also the airlines love the commonality of the platform. As long as Boeing manages to squeeze sufficient performance out of the model the 737 will continue to be built.
I don’t understand why people say the 757 provides a much better passenger experience compared to the 737. The cabin width is almost identical and the 757 looks tiny inside, so I don’t think I could call it spacious or have wider seats. The 737 with Sky Interior can surely hold more bags. I honestly think people praise the 757 and call Boeing stupid to persist with the 737 and not build a new 757, to dump as much s**t on them as possible after the 737 MAX fiasco and them to potentially lose out on the middle-market segment to the Airbus XLR. Sure, the 757 is a hot rod and feels much cooler to fly on the a 737, but I don’t get the hype.
There is one thing the 757 has that I know the 73s won't - the ability to use the 2L door for boarding, keeping down or eliminating first class traffic jams that come from solely being able to board out of a 1L door... or even make boarding faster in the case of parking at a dual jetway setup (and thus being able to use both 1L and 2L doors).
There was no way for Boeing to know the mid market would evolve as it did. It probably didn't expect 737's to be flying 6 plus hour routes either. But they made the best choice they could. Kudos to Airbus for it's ability to react to that growing segment. Boeing needs to wait this one out. Hard to do in such a competitive market, but it would make sense. An airline like Delta could hold out for a scratch build if the numbers make sense. I also don't see many airlines scrapping wide body hub operations just yet.
@@jirehla-ab1671Boeing still dictates how wide the fuselage is. And like the 737, it's too narrow. I'll take any Airbus single aisle over any Boeing single aisle. It's no contest.
Just flew on a 29 year old 757-200 on a flight from Newark to Edinburgh on United. It was interesting to be in a plane that looked so dated yet equipped with modern entertainment screens.
If they were going to have to redesign the 737 anyway, why didn't they redesign the F'ing gear on the MAX, so they could hang the engines under the wing and they wouldn't need MCAS?
Icelandair just made the biggest aircraft deal in history here by choosing the A321LR/XLR to replace its aging 757 fleet. I've been on their 757's more often than I can count and I will sorely miss these fantastic aircraft. 757 fan for life!
Its not really true that the 757 is the only mid-market aircraft. There was earlier the 707-320b that outperform the 757-200 in range while having similar capacity . There was also the DC8-73 that outperformed the 757-300 in capacity and also outperformed 757-300 in range. In the 70s and 80s when the 757 was launched most routes that it would later excel at was flown by DC8 at that point
Funny this video was released the same day that Airbus has to reduce the range of the 321XLR to satisfy regulators and the actual range in operation will be close to 4,000nm. Again, best replacement for a 57 is another 57.
I am so happy you did this video because I have been thinking, where did Boeing go wrong on many of their planes. It can't be that hard to build a new plane that will be a winner any day. Just take a good look at older models, identify what makes airlines love them and build new ones with similar characteristics but with more modern fuel efficient engines and avionics. I think the new 737 max 10, or a new 7x7 NMA (whenever Boeing decides to build it) should incorporate the best things of the 757 that airlines love. How hard can that be? 😊
In the early 1990's when the 737NG came out Boeing sold 6 platforms (717/737/747/757/767/777). Technology and innovation have enabled Boeing to cover it's markets with fewer platforms today. Today Boeing sells the 737, 777, 787 and is still selling a few 767 freighters. That is their strategy going forward. To cover as much range payload with the fewest number of platforms.
Unlike AIB with its best saleing 320 family jet BOE didn’t bother to update neither cabin nor cockpit of 757 not to mention the engine. B757 an airliner with still unmatched performance looked already outdated. Arguably when BOE shut down 757 FAL almost 20 years ago it switched somehow to suicidal mode which still rages on.
Hindsight is a 20:20 science. I have never been a great fan of the 757 but is probably because I flew in charter versions in the UK and found them uncomfortable, oddly I always preferred the 737 despite it's own comfort issues. Same goes for the A320 family but there always seemed a bit more space. May well be wrong.
My favorite jet is the 757.❤❤ It is such a beautiful and graceful plane. When I worked at Philadelphia Inteenational, many of us called it, the Ferrari of the airways. I wish Boeing would open up the production line again.I believe the plane still has economical viability and it's still loved by airline personnel and passengers alike.❤❤❤ Revamping the 737 was a big mistake. The Max,became a nightmare. 😮
If Delta and United are the only ones using the 757 right now, there’s probably not enough long and thin routes to warrant a new plane. The long and thin routes before have grown fatter and thus suit a twin aisle better.
Boeing made a huge load of money on the 737 NG series, it made no sense for them to develop/build a 757, especially when you consider that airlines lost their interest in the 757. I guess Boeing will do a similar thing like Airbus with their next narrow body, a plane that cover 180-240 pax with different lengths. Boeing has already done this successfully with the 787.
The 757 is a great airplane and all of its positive quality’s are why is is used as Air Force 2 (VP plane). Every few years people would talk about bringing the 757 back into production. I imagine that Boeing would have to rebuild most of not all of the tooling for this aircraft. Interestingly Boeing had planned to make a shorter 787 to somewhat fill the gap of the 757, but no one ordered it so they danced that program
I remember a flight from San Francisco to Cincinnati with Delta in a 757 in the 1990s. I was sitting in the second last row. During then still existent meal service it took almost two hours until the two flight attendants had reached the final segment of the long aisle of this narrow-body aircraft. Boarding and disembarking also took long because all passengers were squeezing themselves through that same single aisle. Thus, from a passenger’s perspective this is/was not my favorite plane.
i just did my XC solo for my PPL and i saw 5 United 757's being scrapped at an airport i landed at, along with an old KLM DC-10 and interestingly a South African a340-600
The 321XLR range is being reduced, not customers are second guessing on the aircraft. The A220 or 737Max-8 or 9 are true contenders for a good competition. I think the 757 Max will eventually come to life
@@nickolliver3021 not necessarily. the NG is the 3rd generation of 737, and there were already signs that the design was not ideal. the a320ceo is the first generation of a320, and afaik it's not showing the same age issues that the 737 architecture is
@@niia.3642 the 737classic was the first, the second was the NG and the MAX is the 3rd gen. Even still the a320ceo is the 737ng replica as how I see it. Even if the 737 has shown its issues the a320 has had its fair share of issues too. hence why we cant just compare apples to oranges
I basically disagree with what Boeing said. Boeing ALWAYS misses the chance to make the right decision. And that's because M-D and Wall st. run the company.
I think the idea of the 757MAX is a situation of hindsight being 20/20. It is impossible to make the argument that Boeing made the wrong choice pursuing the 737NG. Boeing's self-inflected wounds from the MAX program are the real catalyst for the discussion, in my opinion.
Skip the waitlist and invest in blue-chip art for the very first time by signing up for Masterworks: www.masterworks.art/cobyexplanes
Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more.
See important Masterworks disclosures: www.masterworks.com/cd
it's a scam. shame on you for promoting this shit for ignorant people. you have a responsibility as a youtuber
I am a former employee of Boeing from the 1990's and have some insight on the 757. The 757 was designed as a high performance aircraft to operate in high density altitude conditions, and the tall landing gear allowed a greater angle of attack rotation without a tail strike, thus getting the plane off the ground. The 757 also used a lot of expensive materials like Aluminium-Lithium and Titanium which are very costly to work with. The 757 is a master piece of aeronautical engineering, but just became too pricey to transport passengers from point A to point B.
I appreciate your comment. It perfectly reflects how Boeing perceives and values passengers. It reflects the corporate philosophy and thus also the debacle of the 737 MAX. And thus the core problem of the company.
Interesting comment. Boeing was a respectful and prestigious company. But today that company is a normal and has mainly outdated products. Except with the B787. Airbus took the lead 5 years ago and will hold it for 10 more years. Or more. Boeing made too many bad decisions and will pay a high price for that.....
@@patrickpeters2903Airbus’ revolutionary products are really just the A220 and A350 though, the A320/330neo are also just reengined 80’s designs. I’d even argue that the 777X is more revolutionary than the A330neo.
@@jatterhog Boeing's problem are not their products but the internal philosophy and the approach and value of safety and quality. You currently have not one new product that does not have any quality defects for years now.
@@jatterhog did I say that Airbus planes are revolutionary priducts??? No but Boeing screwed temselves by stopping a very good B757 without any replacement. And made the horrible B737 Max. 2 very bad decisions. Making Airbus the king in the single aisle market. Boeing gave the opportunity to Airbus. The Boeing management is very very very bad...
The 757 is one of those planes that we all hold close to our hearts, praying that the airlines hold onto them forever, there is nothing like a 757, and nothing will ever get the fan base like the 757 has.
The only drawback of the 757-300 is that if you are seated in the back-end of the plane and you are making a connection, you may not make the connecting flight because many airports in the U.S. only use a single boarding bridge.
Simple: notify the crew of your connection. Some airlines will make it possible to get such folks off the aircraft first or reseat them closer to the front in available unsold seating.
A bit like the DC 8 stretch series
I was in the last row once took 45 min to get off
757-300 was called the flying pencil due to the ratio of its length to width. It was also designed for hub and spoke concept rather than point to point.
-300 usually exits L2 door, would be no worse than a fully loaded A321 or 737-900\-9\-10 out L1.
I LOVE the 757. Beautiful aircraft that has superb performance characteristics.
also missed, the 757 has the highest thrust to weight ratio of any airliner in service today!
Sure, the Rocket Plane!
@@davecer6578 Yes, plus it has a huge wing. Hence a lot of fuel, low wing load, high thrust-to-weight... you get a "fighter jetliner". No wonder airline pilots love it!
On the other hand, I once flew from Iceland to Seattle on 757 economy with Iceland Air - it was... to put it mildly, unpleasant experience. My knees were hitting the back of the seat in front of me(I'm 5'11", nothing special), there were no food on almost 8 hours flight, very basic snacks wee offered at exorbitant prices... The only positive moment of the flight was the take-off: 11 seconds from the beginning of the roll to being airborne! Less than half of the time it normally takes with other airliners elsewhere!!!
Iceland Air is a special use case. But so was the 757 from the beginning.
The main issue now is, the A321XLR has already soaked up most of the possible orders. Any competitor will have to think twice if they can sell enough of their own designs.
Interesting enough, the airlines using the 757 within the USA and are looking for a replacement have not really committed to the A321XLR. However, Airbus at least managed to sell some to them.
Excluding the tu-154
I think the 797 is going to be like the 757 but completely redesigned and way more fuel efficient obviously
lets hope that its not too late for Boeing by then. If they really only want to introduce their next aircraft in the 30s, then Airbus will have an even larger market share. Already know Boeing is struggling .
It would have been a good idea, because the 757 hsd taller landing gear, so they could have mounted the engines properly.
I am a 757/767 pilot and I love to fly that jet!!!! Definitely the most beautiful jet ever built!!!!!
Donald Trump owns a 757!
I like the A340 also. Took a trip to South Africa back in 2011 on SAA and it was super smooth.
Another hurdle for a theoretical 757max is that if Boeing decides to build it, Airbus would likely respond with a stretched and further range extended A321, basically becoming the "A322." Airbus doesn't even have to outsell the 757max to beat it. All it needs to do is take away enough sales such that it won't be able to break even. Meanwhile, the A322 won't cost as much to develop since the A320 production line is chugging along nicely, so there's virtually no risk for Airbus to respond to a 757max.
This is kinda how the 747-8 killed the A380. The 747-8i never beat the A380 in terms of outright sales numbers, but since it didn't cost Boeing as much to develop it, they were fine with cannibalizing the VLA (very large aircraft) market just to make sure that the A380 won't be lucrative for Airbus.
Or a stretched A220 version, which airlines know is very fuel efficient.
Boeing has an ace in the hole: The "737-10 (or an 11) MaxXLR". :) Additional fuel tanks would give it increased range. A slight increase in engine power and now Boeing has an A321XLR competitor for not much money.
Right, Boeing is stupid enough, to push a design that is basecially not capable of flying, even further above the limit.
@@4evertrue830a220 sucks for pilots it doesn’t have an auto throttle
the NMA was supposed to be the successor but during the corruption that lead up to the max mcdonnell execs wanted to cut costs and make the max instead. i work at boeing and everyone here hates that the project got pulled but i could see it being revived…. hopefully
How does Boeing dig out of this hole? They haven’t had a profitable quarter for years now, I don’t see how they could possibly take on the expense of a new clean sheet airplane design if they aren’t even making money. And Airbus isn’t even letting off the gas. They have a huge line-up of models for the small market, a220, a319, a320, a321 and a321XLR; whereas Boeing only has Max variants -8 and -9. The -10 still isn’t available and -7 is years behind. Even then, the -10 can’t match the range of the a321XLR and the -7 can’t beat the cost of the a220. Is this checkmate Airbus?
Maybe 767 MAX or 767X (based on the 767-200 and 300 sizes) is a good choice. It's a great topic for the next video.
The 767-200 has practically the same capacity as the 757-300. The 767-300 even taps into another size category that also has no competition. The 767-400 is a no-go because it overlaps with the smallest variants of 787 and A330neo. Forget about the 757-200 size, which is already occupied by the A321XLR.
Most importantly, 767 freighters are still being produced, so the tooling, logistics and expertise is still here, unlike the 757.
There are great engine options for the 767X in the form of GEnx and Trent 1000. The same can't be said for 757 MAX. Remember, no engine, no plane.
Moreover, 767X has, what I call, the wide-body advantage, one more seat can be stuffed into each row that the manufacturer intends (8-abreast 767X), much like those 9-abreast A330 and 10-abreast A350. You just can't make a 4-3 seat configuration narrow body aircraft (except for that horrible Hawker Siddeley Trident of Channel Airways).
I absolutely think too that Boeing should have upgraded the 767, already years ago. The fitting engine is already there for a long time: the GEnx-2B of the 747-8.
The 767 is a category on its own and could fly certain routes, especially a large part of lower demand North Atlantic routes, much more efficiently than a 787 or A330.
@@widget787 I flew on a 767 from Tokyo Haneda to Osaka and can totally say that I would prefer to fly on aan upgraded 767 to a single aisle a321 over the atlantic or as another mid to long range option. I know some 767's still do that but are getting old and arnt as efficeint anymore. I understand why the a321 lxr niche exists but honestly I cant see that flight range being comfortable and a smaller 767 fills that niche will.
That wouldn´t quite work. The issue is that while the 767-200 on paper have the same capacity, in reality it have a broader class breakdown. Its also designed for much longer range, making it uneconomical for short and medium range service.
The only 767 Boeing build today are the C46 Tanker and 767 Freighter. Even though this airplane was design in the late 70s and early 80s many of the newer parts are up to today's CAD/CAM and MBD standard therefore a design point of view it makes sense however from a business perspective, there are simply no demand for a 767 passenger airplane. Given the track record of Boeing in the past 20 years I can understand why they are reluctant to burn a bunch of capital which they don't have, just to launch a new airplane program.
@@Liberty2358 I think differently. Many Airlines, especially the big US Airlines, are looking for a 767 sized airplane. The 767 served a market on its own and there is no airplane to fill that role. There are either the bigger, much heavier and way too performant 787-8 and A330-800 or the much smaller A321XLR that by the way cannot fly any significant amount of cargo.
The 767-300 is perfectly sizes for a huge number of thinner North Atlantic markets.
United, just a few years ago, was even ready to order newly built 767-300ERs (non modernized, 1988 style original 300ERs). After waiting for years what Boeing comes up with or not (797, 767X ...) they finally ordered a large number of 787s to replace the 767, which is not an ideal replacement.
Same with Delta, A330-900s are far from a perfect replacement for the -300ER.
Sure, 5 years ago prospects for a 767X were better, but I think even today it looks good. We shall not forget the 767F which would receive a X upgrade too. The 767 is a amazing midsized freighter in all aspects, plus with it's wingspan it fits into the positions at the mega hubs of FedEx, UPS etc.
I think going ahead with the 797/NMA might have been a better idea than ramming the 737MAX through. I note in your recent brilliant video with Boeing at PAS23, the MAX-10's 2000L larger fuel capacity than the baseline A321neo is brought up, and it goes blissfully unmentioned that whilst this is true, it also has 400nm LESS range. That's quite poor. I think once you're having to get CFM to decrease the efficiency of the engines to fit them under the wing the aircraft has effectively become an open casket funeral for an ageing design. It's a great plane don't get me wrong, but it's hamstrung by a baseline design that hails from the 60s, and I can't help feeling if Boeing had just let Airbus take some of the market with the Neo and pressed ahead with the NMA, they might be in a better position today. Still, at least we'll get a NASA TTBW at the next clean sheet, shame they keep the intellectual property rights to it so the rest of the industry won't benefit...
Just flew ORD-SFO on the 757-300. I was almost more excited for that flight than the vacation I was coming back from 😂
More obstacles to upgrading to the 757 were a result of Airbus and Boeing getting access to super high-bypass turbofans: CFM LEAP 1A and Pratt GTF engines for the A320neo and LEAP 1B engines for the 737MAX families, all to compete against Bombardier's CSeries (now the A220). With more non-static takeoff thrust from those larger engines, A321neo family now can climb faster and has somewhat better runway performance to access more airfields with shorter runways.
I think this would had been a hurdle. There was no and none planned in the thrust range the 757 required. With the C-17 ceasing production there isnt a military angle for new engines neither. Only chance would had been if the US military wanted to re-engine the C-17 at this point.
I note Sanspotter's vision of the 75X which was a great video.. When you say, 'Boeing almost decided to build an advanced 757' ... there's still time. I as a passenger recall that takeoff's were very gradual and comfortable. Between the 737-10 and 787-800, there is this mid-market single aisle slot. The 757 comfortably flew flights that stressed the 727-200 range with better economics. 757s cargo bins were unable to use the containers which he A320 family and wide-bodies use. 737s are also bulk loaded, piece by piece.
The 757 is def my fave plane. I get one almost everytime I fly Delta. IDK why Boeing doesn't focus on what works.
a 757 max migt have had simmilar safty issues better to build a brand new plane made from composted not metal
Because the 757 doesn’t work economically. It’s not just the engine but the whole aircraft is out of date and a fuel hog.
Because the 737 works? The Max did have two fatal crashes yes. But Boeing worked hard on making the Max safe. And I'm a Airbus fan.
@@ATH_Berkshire yep a composite body frame simmiler 787 woud work a lot better
Because the 757 was ahead of its time when it was released. The production line of the 757 is dismantled and after they fucked up the Max, they don't have enough cashflow to even reengine the plane, let alone rebuild the production line.
I loved the 757 since it appeared at the SLC airport I worked at 1987 under its test flight loaded with all its test equipment aboard. I even have photos of it dressed in Eastern Airlines logos.
It might have been the right call but as an avgeek I would have to say it’s a shame they did not. The 757 is gorgeous, can you imagine it with the Max-wingtip, LEAP engines with Sheffrons and so fourth?
It’s kind of the same like I’d looooove to see a A340 being revamped.
As a diehard 757 fan, i am pretty sad about the decision. 😅😢
I think the main reason Boeing didn't build the 757 Max now is engine technology I don't think there's anything on the market in the 40,000 plus range that can replace either the RB-211 or PW2000. everything is either too small or too big.
I don't think its a big issue. While there is no real replacement for 757 engine but making new engine based on GEnx tech isn't going to be too hard. 757 max may also use UltraFan by Rolls-Royce that designed to be scalable.
Question is not about possibility or difficulty, but profitability. The GEnx core is way too big. The only thing that is "scalable" on the UltraFan is the gear box. In the event Rolls Royce is starting at the huge end of fan diameter, with no product in the pipe as yet. If we are still looking for a 40 to 43,000 bound thrust range, we are not looking for a much bigger fan, but a (10:1) deeper fan AND a core smaller than RB-211 or PW2000. With only 1000 or so 757 models ever built, maybe we do not need (1) short field performance, (2) hot and high capability AND (3) long legs, why airlines are opting for A-321 or possibly 737-10 to suffice in a few roles. I think idea to put fuel in the skin of the airplane is Airbus stupidity, not genius. By the time they get it "safe" it will be too heavy. What I wonder about instead is what might be easier in a 767-Max study, or a 767 do-over, new airplane.
Absolutely love the Nickel. It's one of the best every built . A plus to fly and maintain.
Putting aside all of the stats, etc………let’s just take a moment to appreciate what a beautiful machine she is!
I love every being bird. However, they should make newer versions 767s and 757s
787 is essentially the new 767
I've been on the Icelandair 757 from Seattle to Keflavik and it was great.
I have flown in the 757 and I think they should have absolutely Built the 757 Max way back when.
They should’ve made a narrow body 787 to fill that space just like how the 767 and 757 were nearly the same plane
That would have been the best approach. The higher cost of the narrow body would have been more than made up by the great performance.
@@jamesbean1962 the efficiency range power and comfort would’ve been perfect and it also would’ve gotten most of the orders the XLR is getting.
I tend to agree, although every analysis I have read on that approach concludes that the narrow body version would have been too expensive to succeed in the marketplace. They absolutely could have topped the A321 XLR in every performance metric, but would that have been enough to beat it in orders? I guess we’ll never know.
@@jamesbean1962 They could also have pilot cross over from the 787, making it more flexible for future costumers. While yes, it would be annoying and expensive in the short run to educate pilots, in the long run it would be cheaper having commonality
No, the business partners and supply chain model for this program is a joke, years behind schedule and billions over budget and lets not get started with the quality control problems. Before the 787 Boeing never has this magnitude of delay. Unfortunately this new found incompetence has bled into the 777-X program, once the cancer has infected the corporate culture there is only one possible outcome without drastic treatment.
A lot of Boeing's woes have snowballed from the extra long production cycle of the 787 Dreamliner. I worked for an Aerospace company during that time that made components for Boeing aircraft. Boeing's original timetable for the 787 put EIS in 2008. After that, we were told we would be supplying components for Yellowstone 1 (Y1), Boeing's then-secret clean sheet design project to replace the 737, which was estimated to go through a product development cycle from 2009-2013. As it turns out, by the time Boeing finally got the 787 flying, airlines like American were forcing Boeing's hand to develop a new small aircraft that would be available by roughly the same time the A320 Neo would be EIS. So, Y1 was scrubbed in favor of Maxxing the 737, which probably wouldn't have happened if Boeing hadn't fallen flat on their face with the 787 development cycle.
I’m surprised this isn’t being said more. I think the 787 is where Boeing lost the plot. Sure it is innovative, but had they focused on what already worked, ie the 777, 767, 757 and the 737, I believe they would be doing just fine right now. Boeing still hasn’t even broken even on the 787.
youre forgetting the a321LR which matches the 757's range and has been around for almost a decade now
company I work for is still has all our 757 molds. we just made a new tailstrike bumper cover a few weeks back. Boeing contracts out to companies who contract out to companies who contract out to companies, if Boeing orders it it will be made they dont even have to arrange shipping. they are not verticly integrated so they dont need to actively build a supply chain, just ask for bids and let other companies figure out how to get it to them on time.
I flew on the 757 for the first time about a week ago and we took off so fast!
I would definitely love to see them Re-engine and Redesign the wing a bit . And hopefully make it more fuel efficient. 😂 and for the love of all that is holy stop stretching the 737.
For better or worse, I think the 737 is about as stretched as it's ever going to get. The -10's landing gear had to be given a special "stretching" do-cracky to let the plane rotate without striking its tail.
If you want to see a 757 with new engines, look at Trumps plane. They upgraded the engines, and it looks beautiful
I, too, love that overpowered beastie, the 757. I do remember some yak last year about using some parts of the 757's original plans to build a 737 replacement, but ... we'll see.
As far as the expense of travel. I spend a lot of time outside the U.S. I have another trip coming up in the August/September timeframe which will cost me nearly 30% more than a very similar trip taken in February. However, I'm attributing those price increases to, literally, gouging customers as post-COVID travel's increased and the vendors lost significant amounts of money over the past nearly three years. They're now trying to make that up.
757 - what an airplane! Everyone loves it. Every pilot wants to fly it. I love flying a Bus but I do love the 757 (it’s the only Boeing I would consider flying). It is the performance king! Only airplane you can fully load up, takeoff on a short runway, fly forever, and then land on a short runway. Consider it the sports car of airliners. The rumor has always been Boeing destroyed the jigs to make the airplane so they can’t make anymore and they are too risk adverse to make a new one.
Airbus 320 family - it’s just comfortable. If you fly it you love it. The cockpit is big and comfy. It’s a pleasure to fly, nothing fancy.
Love this video Coby! Watching from The Bahamas!
This is what Boeing should’ve done from the very start.
They should’ve scrapped the Boeing 737 MAX altogether because if they couldn’t extend the landing gear, then the whole plane had to go!
Hey man, I will say a few things about your video one I love the 757 it’s the smoothest ride on an airplane I’ve ever had and I’ve been on a lot of different ones from airbus and Boeing. I am I guess when you can consider a frequent flyer second of all I work in the manufacturing, part of the world and for Boeing to create at 7:57 max today would actually be easier than 30 years ago and it’s something that they will have to consider because Airbus has now the a 330 and A340 and A350. It would be very smart of Boeing to make a 757 max because the dream liner is a little too big to compete in that market. But then again, this is my opinion and I don’t stated as fact like you do in your video I do not know what your background is and where you get your information from.
In a nutshell Airbus got the best of Boeing by building a cheaper, slower inferior aircraft that burns less fuel. Now that said, the plane still sold a good number of units despite being more expensive. Those same airlines are begging Boeing to make a replacement even with the knowledge that it will be more expensive. The plane would likely address a different market need and would offer airlines capabiloties that the A321 cannot such as being able to carry more cargo which could end up offsetting the price.
Was the 757 fly by wire?
@@scottanno8861 No, its primary flight controls use mechanical cables which control hydraulic actuators as opposed to the 737 which uses mechanical cables which directly control the control surfaces and hydraulic boosters or the A320 which uses electrically controlled hydraulic actuators, except for the rudder which uses cable controlled hydraulic actuators.
One of the major problems with the Flying Pencil is that the landing gear had to be extremely tall to be able to accommodate the engines. It was a major design effort to figure out how to get them to fold up. The engines on the 757 are puny compared to the ones today, so that would just exasperate the landing gear problems.
Puny they are still more powerful then the ones on modern narrow body airliners they make up to 43k pounds of thrust
@@danielmeador1991 I was refering to diameter
@@zork999 they still are bigger then most modern narrow bodies the new a320 family only has the advantage
I absolutely love the 757.
Great, now waiting for 747 MAX
I'm tired of a new 757 talk. i love this plane so much that i just feel so blue balled every time this topic comes up lmao. love the video though!
The 757 has another problem if it is meant to compete against the whole A320 family instead of a 737: it's weight. The 757-200 weighs almost 10 tons more than a almost similar sized A321, mainly due to its huge wing which is 50% larger than on the A321. So a 757-100 competing against the A320 with the current wing would be extremely overweight and not efficient enough.
In my opinion the 757 is not there to replace the 737, it's complementing the 737. I always saw the 737 and the 757 as one family, just like 737 and 727 before. 737 for smaller capacity, short haul flying and 757 for longer haul and higher capacity plus high performance. The 737 can't cover all of this.
Looking back it was a big mistake to discontinue 757 production, but I can understand Boeings decision back then. Now they wish they would have not discontinued it.
A re-engined 757-200, without any other major improvements, would already beat the A321XLR hands down in terms of range. Even a re-engined 757-300 would probably come close to the A321XLR range. Now imagine a "757-250" which has around the range of the XLR but 20-25 extra seats. That one would absolutely kill the XLR.
But two problems: on shorter routes these upgraded 757s could not complete against the A321 in terms of efficiency and if Boeing upgraded the 757 Airbus would immediately start working on a new, bigger wing on the A321.
As an experienced B737 Series, B757, B767, A320 series pilot amassing over 27000 hours, I confess the 757 is the best performing people hauling frame out there today. Though uncompetitive in some markets, and the ONLY airframe to haul max pax and bags long haul, the 757 is the glue that holds the commercial passenger business model to ALL MARKETS together. We kick off pax and bags all the time in the 320 series…only greater than 6 hour flights with weather in the 757 ever thought that compromise. I sat in the back with a recent retired Boeing 757 Chief Engineer and he confirmed the idiot management decisions with choosing the 1958 designed based 737. I promise you that the bribes that Boeing has given to congress will make us U.S. taxpayers foot the bill to bail Boeing out.
If I was an Airline CEO I would opt for the 757 NG over the A321. It may be 10mil more but it has longer range and is far more versitile as well as having viability as a cargo plane.
Then your airline might go bust. Unless most of your routes need the xtra range a modified 757 might give you the extra fuel costs due to the 1970’s aerodynamics of the 757 will kill you. As to cargo the same applies you can now get 757 and A321 cargo conversions and in the future be able to get A321neo conversions.
@@ATH_Berkshire You do know I was talking about when the plane was being considered in the video right? You also know the 32x series of aricraft are not these brand new wonder machines when they were first considered too right? Whiche was not many years after the 757. It could have easily been updated if Boeing wanted too to modern standards like Boeg and airbus did with the 737 MAX and A32x NEO series and would have likely outclassed the 321 XLR on the middle market long range routes. Also the A32x series is not nearly as Rugged as the 757 or 737 series for cargo ops.
What a beautiful person inside and out ❤. He is also staying away from any recording signing deals The man won't sell his soul.
Build a 765. The main drawback of the A321/757 is the single aisle which takes forever to load/unload. A smaller twin aisle will be loved more.
Aisles remove seats so it was a twin aisle would be like a 2-1-2if it was twin aisle witch is just dumb
They tried to do that with the 787-3, but no one wanted it.
@@slags83 but the 787 is already a wide body twin aisle?
only a problem if you dont use aft stairs
I'm a fan of the alternate history where Boeing built a new midrange airplane instead of the 737-max, bought the Bombardier C series (now Airbus A220) and retired the 737, with those two new planes taking the top end and bottom end of its market respectively. But I don't know how commercially viable this plan would have been.
The 737 needs to die. It just doesn't have the ground clearance for modern engines to fit without all sorts of compromises.
It will be a while before the 737 dies. When it comes to price the 737 can't be beat. Boeing knows how to build them cheap and developing updated versions also seems to cost them relatively little. Also the airlines love the commonality of the platform. As long as Boeing manages to squeeze sufficient performance out of the model the 737 will continue to be built.
I don’t understand why people say the 757 provides a much better passenger experience compared to the 737. The cabin width is almost identical and the 757 looks tiny inside, so I don’t think I could call it spacious or have wider seats. The 737 with Sky Interior can surely hold more bags. I honestly think people praise the 757 and call Boeing stupid to persist with the 737 and not build a new 757, to dump as much s**t on them as possible after the 737 MAX fiasco and them to potentially lose out on the middle-market segment to the Airbus XLR. Sure, the 757 is a hot rod and feels much cooler to fly on the a 737, but I don’t get the hype.
It is as uncomfortable as the 737, for sure. And if you're in the back, have fun!
There is one thing the 757 has that I know the 73s won't - the ability to use the 2L door for boarding, keeping down or eliminating first class traffic jams that come from solely being able to board out of a 1L door... or even make boarding faster in the case of parking at a dual jetway setup (and thus being able to use both 1L and 2L doors).
757 is bae. The time that plane gets phased out, I’ll be real upset. I love the idea of a pencil with 2 rocket engines on it.
I’m more a fan of Widebodies but 757X Definitely will prove to be Competitive with The A321xlr. Definitely has its uses
There was no way for Boeing to know the mid market would evolve as it did. It probably didn't expect 737's to be flying 6 plus hour routes either. But they made the best choice they could. Kudos to Airbus for it's ability to react to that growing segment. Boeing needs to wait this one out. Hard to do in such a competitive market, but it would make sense. An airline like Delta could hold out for a scratch build if the numbers make sense. I also don't see many airlines scrapping wide body hub operations just yet.
It's really unfortunate circumstances for Boeing that A320 mainframe just exactly in the middle of 737 and 757 size.
Boeing will build a 757 MAX. I got a good feeling about it
Let them get 777Xs being delivered to customers in the first place, then they can think of making a 757 max
naw man you mixing 9/11 AND THE 737 MAX?!?!
@@Pies.brother, it wasn’t the planes fault, so shut the hell up, the 757 had no fault in the 9/11 incident.
what is the benefit of that ?
Boeing screwed themselves since the end of the 757....unbelievable...
737 max can perfectly overtake every a320 variant except the a321neo, they need the 757 max or the 797
Art is the most corrupt investment system, I would strongly advice against it.
I’m waiting for a finance RUclipsr to do a video about it. Modern MBA would probably do a good job. Or Wall Street millennial.
I love flying United's 757 transcon. I want to like the 777 better on that route but I can't! The 757 just feels right to me.
I much prefer a 2-3-2 set up. The 757 does the job, I just don't like the seating.
The seating configs are done by the airline NOT Boeing
@@jirehla-ab1671Boeing still dictates how wide the fuselage is. And like the 737, it's too narrow. I'll take any Airbus single aisle over any Boeing single aisle. It's no contest.
It's waste of money to carry an extra empty lane.
Just flew on a 29 year old 757-200 on a flight from Newark to Edinburgh on United. It was interesting to be in a plane that looked so dated yet equipped with modern entertainment screens.
The flying pencil is magical and deserves an upgrade.
Maybe a video about the most succesful airframes?
Fascinating, thanks Coby!
Excellent vid & explanation. Thanks.
If they were going to have to redesign the 737 anyway, why didn't they redesign the F'ing gear on the MAX, so they could hang the engines under the wing and they wouldn't need MCAS?
Icelandair just made the biggest aircraft deal in history here by choosing the A321LR/XLR to replace its aging 757 fleet. I've been on their 757's more often than I can count and I will sorely miss these fantastic aircraft. 757 fan for life!
Their biggest. Not THE biggest.
@@nathd1748 Actually both, THE biggest aircraft deal here, as in here in Iceland and also their.
Had good experience flying several times in a Cebu Pacific 757
Coby doesn't miss
Its not really true that the 757 is the only mid-market aircraft. There was earlier the 707-320b that outperform the 757-200 in range while having similar capacity . There was also the DC8-73 that outperformed the 757-300 in capacity and also outperformed 757-300 in range.
In the 70s and 80s when the 757 was launched most routes that it would later excel at was flown by DC8 at that point
My first time travel by plane is on 757
Funny this video was released the same day that Airbus has to reduce the range of the 321XLR to satisfy regulators and the actual range in operation will be close to 4,000nm.
Again, best replacement for a 57 is another 57.
I didnt see this, what is the new "range"?
@@Elementalism 4600 nm while the 757 highest is 4200nm
I am so happy you did this video because I have been thinking, where did Boeing go wrong on many of their planes. It can't be that hard to build a new plane that will be a winner any day. Just take a good look at older models, identify what makes airlines love them and build new ones with similar characteristics but with more modern fuel efficient engines and avionics. I think the new 737 max 10, or a new 7x7 NMA (whenever Boeing decides to build it) should incorporate the best things of the 757 that airlines love. How hard can that be? 😊
Which planes did Boeing "go wrong" with? Genuinely curious.
Honestly
It's quite hard. And full of hindsight
In the early 1990's when the 737NG came out Boeing sold 6 platforms (717/737/747/757/767/777). Technology and innovation have enabled Boeing to cover it's markets with fewer platforms today. Today Boeing sells the 737, 777, 787 and is still selling a few 767 freighters. That is their strategy going forward. To cover as much range payload with the fewest number of platforms.
Unlike AIB with its best saleing 320 family jet BOE didn’t bother to update neither cabin nor cockpit of 757 not to mention the engine. B757 an airliner with still unmatched performance looked already outdated. Arguably when BOE shut down 757 FAL almost 20 years ago it switched somehow to suicidal mode which still rages on.
The 757 is the favorite aircraft, especially one powered by Rolls Royce RB 211’s
Hindsight is a 20:20 science. I have never been a great fan of the 757 but is probably because I flew in charter versions in the UK and found them uncomfortable, oddly I always preferred the 737 despite it's own comfort issues. Same goes for the A320 family but there always seemed a bit more space. May well be wrong.
There is another option.If Boeing makes a 737 MAX-10ER/737 MAX-10ULR or 737 MAX-9ER,it could rival the A321NEO xlr
I suspect that’s a stretch to far. Arguably the Max 10 is already a stretch to far.
@@ATH_Berkshire then no rival for the a321xlr i guess.
2:19 got to love those OVERSIDED engines......
Very informative. Thank you Colby.
:22 "RAISES the question"
Why can’t they make a 757-200ER? Airlines use a 767-300ER…
My favorite jet is the 757.❤❤ It is such a beautiful and graceful plane. When I worked at Philadelphia Inteenational, many of us called it, the Ferrari of the airways. I wish Boeing would open up the production line again.I believe the plane still has economical viability and it's still loved by airline personnel and passengers alike.❤❤❤ Revamping the 737 was a big mistake. The Max,became a nightmare. 😮
If Delta and United are the only ones using the 757 right now, there’s probably not enough long and thin routes to warrant a new plane. The long and thin routes before have grown fatter and thus suit a twin aisle better.
Boeing made a huge load of money on the 737 NG series, it made no sense for them to develop/build a 757, especially when you consider that airlines lost their interest in the 757.
I guess Boeing will do a similar thing like Airbus with their next narrow body, a plane that cover 180-240 pax with different lengths. Boeing has already done this successfully with the 787.
@Coby Explains; I disagree Boeing never intended to re-engine the 757 as the Tooling was already destroyed when any thought of a 757-Max came up
Next to the B-707/KC-135R, the B-757 has the best looking lines and probably the best weight/thrust/economic ratio of all the airliners.
The 757 is a great airplane and all of its positive quality’s are why is is used as Air Force 2 (VP plane). Every few years people would talk about bringing the 757 back into production. I imagine that Boeing would have to rebuild most of not all of the tooling for this aircraft. Interestingly Boeing had planned to make a shorter 787 to somewhat fill the gap of the 757, but no one ordered it so they danced that program
It's just not much better than older 757 anyway. At least in terms of efficiency.
Narrow body legit having much less drag relative for it's size.
797 here we come
Why not do a DC-8 dash 70 type upgrade?
I know someone that works on boeing and they said that Boeing is planning to make the 767-900 or something like that
I remember a flight from San Francisco to Cincinnati with Delta in a 757 in the 1990s. I was sitting in the second last row. During then still existent meal service it took almost two hours until the two flight attendants had reached the final segment of the long aisle of this narrow-body aircraft. Boarding and disembarking also took long because all passengers were squeezing themselves through that same single aisle. Thus, from a passenger’s perspective this is/was not my favorite plane.
Please make another interview with Embraer!!!!
Only real aviation fans remember the American Airlines 757s 😢
i just did my XC solo for my PPL and i saw 5 United 757's being scrapped at an airport i landed at, along with an old KLM DC-10 and interestingly a South African a340-600
Excellent breakdown as always
The 757 is an already remarkable airframe. A Max variant would cost a fortune.
The 321XLR range is being reduced, not customers are second guessing on the aircraft. The A220 or 737Max-8 or 9 are true contenders for a good competition. I think the 757 Max will eventually come to life
I think this was a good approach, though the 737 should have ended after the NG
then so should the a320ceo. that should have ended there too
@@nickolliver3021 not necessarily. the NG is the 3rd generation of 737, and there were already signs that the design was not ideal. the a320ceo is the first generation of a320, and afaik it's not showing the same age issues that the 737 architecture is
@@niia.3642 the 737classic was the first, the second was the NG and the MAX is the 3rd gen. Even still the a320ceo is the 737ng replica as how I see it. Even if the 737 has shown its issues the a320 has had its fair share of issues too. hence why we cant just compare apples to oranges
@@nickolliver3021Noooooo. The Classic is the second generation.
@@米空軍パイロット wrong the classic is tbe first generation!!
I basically disagree with what Boeing said. Boeing ALWAYS misses the chance to make the right decision. And that's because M-D and Wall st. run the company.
Great explanation! Thanks!
NG a right call
I think the idea of the 757MAX is a situation of hindsight being 20/20. It is impossible to make the argument that Boeing made the wrong choice pursuing the 737NG. Boeing's self-inflected wounds from the MAX program are the real catalyst for the discussion, in my opinion.