Everything we know about the Boeing 797, and when the newest airliner will be announced. Do you think we'll see the 797 anytime soon? #aviation #boeing #797
Boeing should focus on getting their quality control in order before launching another model, both the 737-Max and 777X are not going to plan and there are ongoing problems with some versions of the 787. At the moment Boeing quality control is the best selling point for Airbus.
What makes you think that Aerbus is any different I have seen their production lines and they are nothing special. Airbus's sole purpose was to keep large airplane manufacturing capability in Europe. It's like comparing a ford to a chevy there are only so many ways to build an airplane.
To my knowledge Airbus has not yet suffered the humiliation of having a worldwide grounding of an aircraft type and ongoing delays to a new type due to manufacturing issues. As for the number of ways to build an aircraft, there is only one way - correctly.
To be honest, I don't think Boeing have the finances to even think about starting a new design aircraft, what with 737max delays in certification still on going, 777x certification, they need to get these programs up and running and have some revenue coming back in. And also the market will again change in the next 10 years and require a different type completely.
They most definitely have the finances, primarily because of their large order backlog. Boeing’s most recent year to date revenue was $75 billion USD and that’s up from the low in 2019 of about $58 billion, they have TONS of revenue coming in.
Boeing has, not Boeing have. Boeing is one thing. It is one company. Ask yourself this, how many Boeing companies are there.. 1.. so therefore, Boeing is one company. Try saying Boeing are one company. Sounds stupid
Do not forget the 787 Dreamliner. It has become the nightmare liner because of the way it is manufactured. Parts are flown and shipped in from all over the planet. They are made by many companies all over the world. They are moved by hundreds of freight handlers. Then when they arrive, they do not fit quite right, are damaged, or are the wrong part. The outsourcing of parts looked good on paper. But that is because Boeing is ran by accountants, not engineers. Accountants only know numbers and nothing else. They override the engineers, technicians, and mechanics only because it does not look financially responsible to listen to the engineers, technicians, and mechanics, on paper, nor a spreadsheet. Something must be changed for Boeing to reclaim its former glory. Perhaps looking into their past, they can save their future. Meanwhile, Airbus has an 8 year waiting period on their planes. They struggle to keep up because of the incredible demand they have for their aircraft.
@@indridcold8433 you do realize that every plane is made like that right? Both Airbus and Boeing and every plane maker had suppliers and partners all over the globe. The 787 has not become a nightmare, customers absolutely love it and it’s continuing to be ordered. You’re just talking nonsense bro 😂
I think the 757 is still a VERY viable aircraft in today's market. It boasted a faster take-off to cruising altitude rate then many other jets in it's class. It's also stealthy and very quick in getting to it's destination with those RR engines. And it doesn't need a lot of runway to take-off or land. It's still a jet WAY ahead of it's time like the similar Lockheed L10-11 was.
The L1011 is incredible! Today, only one remains, the Stargazer. That jet could land itself! I think it is 50 years old and still in service. I think it is in service launching satellites into orbit.
L-1011 is way ahead of its time while 757 is 40 years out of date, no one wants super narrow single aisle planes. Back when 757 was new there wasn’t an alternative but now there is A321neo, MC-21, C919 all wider than 757
Many people seem to not know that Boeing explored an updated 757. Before they began work on the 737 MAX program, they reached out to their customers to inquire what the interest in an updated and re-engined 757 would be and it was not good. Reportedly only United and a couple Asian customers signaled any interest. But every single 737 operator was strongly interested in an updated 737. So that is what they focused on. The market for long range narrowbody planes is small, that is evidenced by the order number for the A321XLR. That segment is not worth the resources it would take to make a 757 MAX.
@@mraviatorboii2510 doing an updated 757 would’ve required more money and time than the 737 MAX took. And that’s just because the 757 is much older than the 737NG is. Boeing probably realized they can’t do both so they went with the MAX. Selling a couple hundred is not sufficient to keep an updated 757 program going. Meanwhile Boeing has sold over 5900 737 MAX planes. The decision to focus on the 737 was the best for the company in the long run. That’s just the truth.
I loved flying in the 757. I think Boeing pulled the plug too soon on the 757. Airlines have held on to their 757's because they can fill them on longer flights to less popular destinations. The 757 fills a few niches.
How could it be "too soon" to pull the plug on something that sold a grand total of 7 units in its last half-decade of offering? If anything, they didn't pull it soon enough.
How could it be "too soon" to pull the plug on something that sold a grand total of 7 units in its last half-decade of offering? If anything, they didn't pull it soon enough.
Airlines pulled the plug. Because they were expensive to buy, and expensive to operate. Airlines would rather serve markets that work efficiently rather than cater to markets that don’t. If a city lair doesn’t work, then don’t go there. Fly something economically, and set your route structure to work that out.
Before the merger or acquisition of MD, Boeing designers and engineers built great aircrafts but the 757 and 767 in my opinion was and still is an outstanding aircraft designed and built after the acquisition of MD, Boeing needs to shelf the 737 design.
Maybe I didn't fully understand the comment, but the 757/767 was designed and built long before the MD acquisition. The only clean-sheet plane designed/built after the acquisition is the 787.
Boeing has a lot of corporate power, bending arms of politicians and the FAA, spends huge amounts on lobbyists-WHY? Is their management so bad now, it has to resort to these methods?
Even though Aer Lingus got a lot of transatlantic milage from the 757 on the likes of Shannon-Boston route, I think IAG will stick with an all Airbus fleet for Aer Lingus to keep commonality and save on pilot training costs if or when the 797 does come to market. That's just my opinion though.
So this appears to be a 767 replacement instead of a 757 replacement as this will have a very similar twin aisle 2-3-2 seating configuration to the 767. Personally I think this would be a mistake as this would be too close to the 787 in size. I think they should stick to a modern 757 with a 3-3 seating but keep a common type rating to the 787.
The 797 is expected to be a narrowbody plane with a 3-3 configuration. It won’t be a widebody like some are suggesting. The purpose of the 797 is to replace the 737 family. Boeing is hoping to merge the best of both worlds by building a plane that has the range of the 757 but also has capacity levels offered by the 737 family.
@@chunchoi4434 “797” is just used to refer to Boeing’s NMA. It would replace the 737 family but also compete in the market for the 757. That’s what my comment was saying.
@@AirlinersLounge By analyzing American/Delta/United overall domestic/medium haul and transatlantic network (that's nearly one thousand routes), and trying to get in the shoes of those airlines, this is what comes up : - we already have a bunch of Airbus narrow bodies fleet, qualified/certified crews, due to mergers, and we can't exchange A32x for 737 or 757.. - Airbus gave us a very generous deal by qualifying our crew, sometimes almost for free (because we also have A330Neo, A350 and eventually A220). - but it's also thanks to Boeing to have come up with the 737Max, despite all problems and delays, we are talking about the 737 fleet ground and flight crew, which is HUGE. Firing them or making them pass another type certificate (it being a 757Max or Airbus narrow body) is very time consuming, highly disruptive, and is a risk in terms of flight philosophy if we were to go from Boeing to Airbus ASAP, we would fire many who fail to pass. So, we decide to stick with the 737Max as long as it has acceptable safety and economic records. - the network by the way favors the 757... we ASKED Boeing to make that plane. But, since, we learned to accept the fact that the A321 is nearly the exact same capacity (80% of customers cannot tell appart 757 and A321), the A321LR is nearly the exact required RANGE (yes, that's true), the A321XLR covers ALL existing routes, we actually don't need that extra 1000nm of the 757, honestly. And if sometimes we do, which actually happens, truth is as demonstrated by our operations, the demand on all those longer routes already allows us to operate LARGER planes with MORE seats, like 787, or 777, and A350. We even connect twice a day with those types, so the 757 despite being upgraded has no say here. Sometimes, even the 767-400ER was way better. - by the time Boeing proposes a 757Max, we would have either migrated to an all Airbus A321XLR fleet or just introduced new 737Max-10, or somewhere in-between. What we would suggest at that point is either Boeing continuing the 737 type rating, which won't happen due to public opinion, or a substantially modernized A321XLR with new wings and engines, very likely, without any type rating issue, and potentially expect the LARGER A322Neo which would have ZERO competitor. Yes, we would order a BUNCH of them.. - even if some of the above are speculations, they all start from solid facts (don't believe me, but please, GO STUDY the network, the demand, observe the dispatched fleet, the number of flights per day/week and the average seat occupancy, if you don't, I wouldn't back off my 10 years of detailed monitoring). Therefore, it is highly expected Boeing to be very RELUCTANT to work on a new 757 : a new 757-200 will alr3ady have strong established competitors (A321(X)LR and 737Max9/10). A new 757-300 will face a very possible A322NeoLR counterattack from Airbus, meaning something in between, like a 757Max-8 (between Max7 and Max9), would be irrelevant. If Boeing would propose an even larger variant, like a 757Max-9 or -10, that's a narrow body 767-300ER, and physics will tell they will have less range, but if they have decent range, I (Delta/United/American) would ask for a 767Max INSTEAD, have common sense God1mmit Boeing! It's not by chance we declined your shitty 787-3, just build the right plane for the right routes already!! - of course, I (Delta/United/American) understand my customers (ie : YOU!) love the 757, and HATE the 737 since the Max cringy embarrassment. Seems I (United/American/Delta) have no choice but... ultimately go FULL AIRBUS NARROW BODY. But that's something I can't advertise. It will just be the same as for the A350, when the time comes, people will fly Airbus, they like it or not, it's not up to them to decide.!! If they want to fly Boeing, they'll wait for the 767Max.. 2030 it is.. It's somewhat funny Boeing understands that and already accepted reality by shutting down the 757 production line, and betting all on maintaining 737 descendance... turned out two crashed nearly killed the line, but in 2024, it appears 737 is still rocking..
revolutionary is not the term i would use to describe a possible 797 at the moment... neither the 2-3-2 layout nor any announced range/capacity/efficiency combination are particularely new things... just a very good offer for the middle of the market
Can someone explain the benefit of dimmable windows? These seem to be controlled completely by the cabin staff, and I've found on long haul they set them semi-dimmed within about half an hour of getting in the air, and don't clear them until about the same before landing, making having a window seat almost pointless as you can barely ever see outside.
Of all the planes I've flown (707, 727, 737, 757, A319, A320), the 757 was by far my favorite flight. It was great at going ballistic and hauling ass to cruising altitude. Great airframe.
Just by looking at it, I feel safe and comfy to travel in it anywhere. I can't say the same for flying over the Atlantic, nor West Coast to Hawaii on a 737, nor an A321. I consider those for Domestic/National travel and Tuna Cans for Long, long over the water travel. I will never book a trip over the water on a 737, A320 family.
737 is by far the least comfortable plane I've flown, clamped seats and narrow aisle, A320 is much better. Would be a blessing if it is replaced by twin aisle 797 (737 has giving Boeing a bad name afterall)
You have to be kidding. Have you ever heard of the 767? It's cabin layout? Now there is serious conversation happening about a re-engined 767 since they are still popular as cargo planes. I think the 797 will likely be less of a 767 and more like a next generation plane with new wing design, etc. I think it will be a design that will revolutionize the NMA and the replace the 737.
Don’t get me wrong, there are many “favorite” aircraft but mine has always been the 767. The smaller containers meant for 767 and DC10, the wide body and ETOPS/range make it a very universal aircraft. I like the 777 but my favorite has always been 767.
I agree, the 767 is highly underrated. Especially the 767-400ER because it makes use of the 777 technology and from the inside looks just like a narrowed 777. The 767-400ER was also the very first wide-body I've ever flown in and it'll always hold a very special place in my heart that no other airplane can even come anywhere near occupying!
As. a Brit my favourite Boeing of the past was always the 747 and the 777 together with the sports car 757! Today, is a different matter, very sad. Maybe they should call Boeing. WALL ST.
What needs to be mentioned here is that the 757 is said to be a dreamliner to fly - takeoff characteristics like a fighter jet without the instability. How much does this contribute to its current staying power, I'm not sure, but it can't hurt. This will be a tall order for a modern economy-designed jetliner to achieve, and if it's ignored, it might disappoint. As a side note, the last passenger liner with such a reputation was the Lockheed "Connie" Constellation (1949), and it's still a legend, with so many firsts under its belt.
Whatever they come up with, if the "new" plane somewhat ressembles the dreamliner and/or is marketed as a smaller version of the dreamliner, I am all for it. Because i recently travelled with one and it is by far my favorite experience, and call me dumb but the sleek look of it and the dimmable windows (and its global comfort) swept me like the A380 did back in the day.
The industry needs an aircraft with a capacity of 220 -240 with a range of 5000 to 6000 nm with low operating costs, seat configuration and training costs are a secondary issue
Thanks for including AirBaltic’s state of art Airbus A220-300. That is awesome aircraft. Designed by Bombardier, then thanks to complaints from Boeing program was overtaken by Airbus. And that is good for both Airbus and Bombardier - Airbus is sales and marketing powerhouse, and that enables much bigger sales than Bombardier has planned.
@@applejacks74 yes it is like that. Yet it was designed and developed by them, yet for the program and jobs it is good that Airbus took control on this. Bomardier had huge debts.
The 2-3-2 layout reminds me of the old 767 which was a great long haul plane especially if you had the middle seat because you only had to clime over a single person. I never understood the 757 for long haul flights. I once flew from Paris to NYC on an AA 757 and it was awful. When it was time for meal service, passengers needing to use the bathroom had to contend with flight crew and their carts.
After the recent 737 incident door plug, will they ever get anything to sell?! Ever since they fired all the engineers in charge and replaced them with bean counters, nothing but crashes, delays, and made shoddy! Their reputation will never be the same!
The 2-3-2 layout is 30+ years old thanks to the 767. I don’t know if Boeing is still considering it, but at one point there was discussion of a 2-2-2 layout, which would be all new, with same number of seats across as 757 but quicker boarding.
Boeing needs to do what General Dynamics did in the 1990s, decide what their core business is and sell off the rest. If you can’t be #1, or #2 trying to be number one, sell it. Boeing needs to focus on re-learning how to build reliable and safe aircraft. I currently avoid flying in Boeing’s 787 and new variants of the 737, years ago I avoided DC-9’s, and DC-10’s (for obvious reasons at the time; see ‘cargo hatch’ design flaw).
The a320 family is just such masterpiece and is so successful, Boeing has just got them self into a big mess and I think coming out with a completely different aircraft is not what they need.
Boeing literally made more money last year than Airbus and it has a backlog order book of over 6000 aircraft valued at over $450 billion USD. This whole “Boeing is in a huge mess” is nothing but dramatics. They will be just fine 😂
TLDR : betting on a new 757 will KILL Boeing Commercial!! Please, STOP begging for a new 757 if you don't want Boeing to DIE! I don't understand : people are COMPLAINING about the 737 being a century old technology, the 787 being a failure (really?), the 747 being out of place/no need for an upgraded version and the 777-X a mere recycled 777..... Yet, they DON'T WANT Boeing to make an entirely new model..!! Boeing has NO CHOICE, strategically speaking, but make a SEEMINGLY NEW model!! If Boeing were to make a stretched 737 fuselage with new wings, engines and landing gears, the typical 737 nose and tail MUST be dumped to NEVER show the face of that design again, simply put, a scaled down 787-10 design enforced on the 737 fuselage factory line. Furthermore, I have a strong feeling people talking about a successor to the 757 are American citizen. Yeah, the entire world know you (American) love that plane, fast, reliable, perfect in so many ways, but ONLY IF THE ENTIRE WORLD WAS LIKE USA. Elsewhere, this aircraft is pretty shit! If Boeing were smart, looking at American, United, Delta (etc.) that are US operators of 95% of the ENTIRE passenger fleet produced 757s, airlines that are ALL switching to the already available, reliable and sustainable A321(X)LR for many decades to come, potentially upgradeable with NEW wings and engines later on (yeah, Airbus knows how to do so), it's not in a successor of the 757 that Boeing should think of! Don't mix your love of that plane with economical strategies, learn to love the A321 instead, and potentially the upcoming 737Max10, which will directly compete with an upgraded 757-200. BTW, did you knew the front section of a 757 fuselage (except the nose) comes from the 737 production line, and the aft section from the 707/727? Do you understand the 757 is basically a 737 with new wings, engines, landing gears, and a 767 nose? I don't get how people can love the 757, but not the 737, they are basically the same design, and the 737NG wings is basically a merge between the classic 737 wings and the 757's. Last, there is no such thing as an entirely NEW model. Looks are new, but under the skin, everything is pretty much the same, just improved or fixed. It's not because it has more composites that there is absolutely nothing picked from older designs. The 787 took 70% of its technology from the 777-200 and the 747. The 737 Max MCAS was from the 767 refueler... If Boeing were to design a "new" plane, 80% of it would remain existing technologies, half of what's new will go into cosmetics (shape, cabin configuration, seats...) and the rest will be actual new things, like SpaceX Starlink faster Internet, AI learning flight management, etc. Nothing really new will come up on how you design and build a center wingbox tank, or floor strengthening components, or cabin insulation (...) they will ALL directly derive from 737, 767, 787... because, that's how you make money, you don't rebuild an entire factory line for each new model, you reuse what exist, Airbus does exactly the same.
@@VeniVidiAjax A true aviation enthusiast loves every plane and does never ever ask stupid questions like "Airbus or Boeing" or "757 or A321". A pro aviation enthusiast goes deep in understanding how the industry works, learns to deal with reality and accept many things even if they must come to an end, like how much one loves Concorde, it's now history and sweet memories. I said "Americans love the 757, the rest of the world doesn't", also, "learn to love the A321 lineage", I never said "learn to HATE the 757". I reckon what I said suggest "I have a deep hatred of that plane" and that upsets you very much to the point you decide I must shut up and leave, but that's an assumption, you don't know how much I really appreciate the 757, and me to shut up or leaving is out of the question. The 757 is a wonderful plane, we all know the characteristics, but what makes it better than another narrow body are : - its size, more spacious (despite exactly the same cabin engineering as a 737), it actually gives the impression it's larger and more comfortable. - its size, that puts the engines farther, inducing less vibrations in the cabin, very peaceful trip - its size, and the number of doors, inducing more dividers in seat ranges, yet more spacing, easier to deplane than 737 - its powerplant (we ignore the initial old RR on the first production units), basically a stretched 737 on steroids, now you fly the biggest plane on this airport, and you never ever have anxiety climbing with one engine inop. Also new APU, less noise, less vibrations (improved aft fuselage insulation, on 737, this was achieved only with Max series) - its range, thanks to its size (larger wings, larger tanks), you fly with 757 everywhere to almost anywhere, the more you fly it, the more you love it, it becomes part of your identity, ie, the ideal philosophy of travel you're identifying yourself in. That's very normal, similarly, lambda people who flew only Boeing are prone to develop hatred for Airbus. - a much spacious cockpit than the 737 with huge windshields, because that's also a 767 cockpit, almost, everybody here knows you go downstairs to get there, that's peculiar. - one of the strongest and advanced landing gears (many had doubts), twin bogey, softer touchdown despite firm contact, very comfortable - much greater redundancy than any of its predecessors (except the 747 in a few cases and the TriStar), as reliable as ever - perfectly balanced wing surfaces design, unmatched performances on short, medium and long haul, yet, still smaller in wingspan than a 707-320/DC8, no usual airport had to upgrade infrastructure, and the lowest drag ratio among classic twin engines config (except 737-200), very efficient cruise performance. - outstanding spare parts dispatch by Boeing, thanks to all major US airlines cooperation operating the type, hardly any maintenance delay - cosmetics is a personal matter, but for those who love low hanging non pointy noses like DC8/DC9 or TriStar (later on A320), the 757 is indeed the sexiest looking of them all, what a beautiful plane. - almost same type rating as the 767, airlines were delighted (note : people think A320/A330/A340 type rating commonality was an Airbus innovation, they are deeply mistaken, but what matters is "Airbus copies good things from Boeing, Boeing shouldn't be ashamed to copy everything good from Airbus) - much simplified systems with greater automation and mechanical/hydraulic/electric/electronic help. Not only for the flight crew, but also for cabin and ground crew, what Boeing brought as a wonder of innovations at that time on both 757 and 767 was UNPRECEDENTED. - also, from companies designing seats and cabin layouts, they've put in their top most professionalism (you're launching two new types at the same time), noone could believe a 707 cabin could be that beautiful. The same happenned for Airbus with the A330/A340, then Boeing reiterate the feat with the 787. - any American jet traveller in the 90s-2000-2010 era has probably more wonderful travel and vacation memories flying 757 than ANY OTHER TYPE. Even 747 is no match, how can one boast more about anything else than 757 that brought him/her to fine sand sunny beaches, daughter's graduation, Thanksgiving or new year eve... ................. That's the magic of a thoroughly studied question about the best aircraft to build, decision taken 40 years ago. A further democratization of air travel making the world much smaller multiplying the amount of direct destinations by a factor of 5..!! That's what you call an outstanding planning, thanks to United, Delta, Northwest, Continental, American, Air China, British Airways, Avianca... and many more, some through leasing companies and banks, and of course, Boeing, when, at the time, talks were more focused on doing great for the entire industry and its customers than making solo money by trying to sabotage others. I would tell you, even the most obscure "failure" deserve at least a 500 pages novel, an entire row in a library wouldn't suffice to detail the wonders the 757 brought to the world. I absolutely support that. I'll never say to anyone "hate a specific aircraft", instead, I will repeat "love them all and have respect for every manufacturer", even if you're American and patriot, learn more about russian aviation industry... an advice from a former Boeing fanboy who learned to move on two decades ago. The sad thing however, and that's the whole point of my post, is people mixing their personal feelings (toward a specific type or manufacturer or through patriotism) with reality, making them build assumptions and empty wishes, spread them and mutually maintaining the pace. What happens later on? Nothing they wished for actually happens, everybody is perplexed, what, how, why..?? Example : the moment you see a 2+3+2 seating config, what plane you think of? Not once this video pointed out "it's a 767 successor", that's reality denial, because... 757, "we want a new 757.." And Boeing is absolutely aware people (Americans) are waiting for it, but Boeing knows the industry better than any of us. The 757 was born in a context you only had 737-200, DC9, then to go transcontinental without a stop, you had 707s and DC8, then if you want capacity, you had DC10, TriStar, A300B and 747. What was missing, precisely, what was the best aircraft, 40 years AGO. There wasn't 737Max9, no A321XLR, no 767-300ER, no ETOPS. Don't mix your feelings and reality. Enforcing a decision to build a 757 successor today will have consequences : - it renders the 737Max10 program irrelevant : the Max10 powerplant is too weak to operate on high and hot terrain at max capacity, better use existing 737Max8/9 and A321(X)LR, and wait for that new 757. Boeing isn't a fool (despite the recent drama), for the company, the Max10 *_is_* the 757 successor already. For Boeing, if the public can say "if there is no 767 successor, use larger 787", that means it's equivalent to "if there's no 757 successor, use larger 767". - because we (airlines) have no new 757 for an extra 10 years, instead, we order MORE A321 and Max9, money doesn't wait, and only order a few 757Max for the routes that cannot be directly operated by existing fleet. That's not how Boeing will reiterate the wonderful order log of the 757. - how many 737 and A320 series that could fly direct did we had 30 years ago, and how many of them do we have today, continental US speaking? How many of them will we have in 10 years? Can Boeing convince airlines, despite the great variety of choices today and the increasingly difficulty in profitability in the industry, that by 2050, the 4 major US airlines will absolutely require 2000 units of the new type on top of the existing fleet of 737 and A321, at the precise moment everybody is phasing out its huge fleet of 767-300ER? - in the industry you don't enforce one ideal case then take blows head on later, that was the 737Max syndrome. Instead, you observe an entire system in motion, aging 757s are not the main character here, quite far, we observe what potential plan the opponent has (Airbus), if Boeing has 10 years to make an entirely new plane, Airbus also has 10 years to make an entirely new plane. If Boeing has a couple year to reinstall an entire factory line, Airbus... well, Airbus already have the A321 factory line operative, they have one year headstart, all they have to do is engineering toolings for new wings and undercarriage and propose a stretched variant dubbed A322 :/
@@VeniVidiAjax Be factual, have common sense by putting irrelevant matters aside (emotions, off topic, grammar, since english is my 3rd tongue, don't bother picking at spelling or grammar errors). If you make an assumption on point, clarify : "do you hate the 757 that much?" If challenged on opinions, don't ask one to shut up or leave, bring counter facts so everyone enthusiasts an pro here can crosscheck, it's the internet, if one doesn't like discussions, he/she disables comments and never ask for thoughts, likes and subscription ! Why the next 757 is needed? Saying "current fleet is aging" is not an answer, you can use what already works and will be available shortly, the only valid part of that answer is answering to "how many 757 do we need to operate the routes A321LR/XLR/Max10 can't fly? The answer is "very few", so few that's not how you convince Boeing who needs to sell 2000+ units to proceed while Airbus won't stay idle. And China, what China will do? Will chinese airlines buy 757Max like 30 years ago, or select the next improved Airbus from their latest local factory ? Do British Airways get new 757 or go Airbus? What about Iberia, Condor, El Al Israel, Ethiopian, Avianca... What are the odds, based on their current fleet/crew/maintenance deals, and their near future plans? What are airlines actual expectations for their 767 fleet replacement, or do they expect Boeing to continue 767-300ER production and spare parts supply for two more decades, General Electric and Pratt and Withney to maintain previous engine generation support for 3 decades? Or should everyone ditch 767-300ER in favor of 787-8, or go A330-800... Or ask Boeing to upgrade both 757 and 767? The Boeing 757 is one little concern in the huge complexity of all actors, factors and uncertainties involved. Can you afford to proceed when there will be those who will abandon ship at first big problem? Anyway, it doesn't matter at this point (2024), multiple variables can change til the day Boeing could announce to have made profits on its next new model (actually, 737Max10 and 777-X has to prove their worth, failure to be profitable will cripple plans on new model, it being 757 or whatever). Please note what I say is of importance for those who love Boeing and want the Max lineage to shine for decades. Failure to take the right decision will create a new Boeing drama... I wouldn't say anything if I were only an Airbus fanboy and let Boeing do as it pleases, backed up by "get us new 757", that's the main reason why I was crude in my first post. Don't you want Boeing to stop the mess already, be humble and take good decisions? Boeing is already giving hints on a twin aisle, is letting discussions of reengined 767 go public, but to no avail, "we want a narrow body.."
It's not going to happen because there are far bigger issues than just the type rating. 1) Boeing is still busy getting the 737-10 and 777-X certified. 2) The top priority for Boeing is to get their QA issues sorted out. 3) Until 1 and 2 are solved and they can increase their sales and deliveries, they simply cannot afford a risky clean-sheet design. 4) A 7-abrest cabin is not efficient (one additional aisle for just one single more seat per row) 5) Airbus has already captured a large part of the MoM and the 757-replacement market with the A321. 6) Whatever Boing does, Airbus can respond very quickly to kill Boeing's business case, e.g. with a A322 (re-winged and stretched A321). Even if such a model will be less efficient and not sell as well as the 797, it will be far cheaper to develop and operate.
Boeing needs to focus on fixing current issues first before jumping into a new major project like this. Customer's trust in your products is important.
2-3-2 is a "totally new" seating configuration? Have you never heard of the 767? In fact, I find it odd that this video doesn't even mention the 767 which is much more similar to this new design concept vs. the 757.
People have been taught to look at specifications and compare them, the higher the better... That's the lowest level of understanding of the aviation industry, but for the public, it's fine. Reality is, you look at the market fisrt, who/how many are willing to pay/send goods, you deduce the demand, you anticipate concurrents, then you identify your part, what you can realistically grab, to finally DEFINE the desired capacity and characteristics of the perfect aircraft for that route. At this point, you haven't decided Airbus or Boeing, yet, 757, 737, A321 or whatever. You do the same for every routes, and finally you come up with the optimal set of desired characteristics. Only then you look at what Airbus and Boeing and whoever else have in catalogs. And, not all routes requires the maximum range of a 757, quite the OPPOSITE, only a FEW require that range. Meaning, if something already doing well like a 737Max9/10 or A321(X)LR is available, you DON'T need a 757, even a Max one. Bear in mind, when airlines like Delta, United, Northwest and American wanted a 220 seat mid range capacity for point to point connexion to enhance their network with a better service, what was available, historically speaking? Narrowbody wise, you had 737-200, aging DC8, nice DC9-40 and 50, but except large and fuel hungry DC8, no twin engine had ETOPS and sufficient range, and you had to go DC10, A300 (got ETOPS thanks to PanAm if I'm not mistaken) and Tristars (too large) instead. That's WHY airlines asked Boeing to design BOTH the 757-200 and the 767-200 (not even the ER). Airbus responded with the A310-200, no wonder why Delta flew the type for a while, because there was nothing else. The 757 got there because there was a potential sell for thousands of the type. What is to be understood here is the seemingly SUCCESS of the 757 is the result of a context (era and geography) with no choice (aircraft with similar desired capabilites) to the point airlines asked specifically for a plane with precisely those characteristics (and they talked with each over beforehand). Today, and in the near future, the context is drastically different : routes have changed, demand have changed, ETOPS/EROPS have changed, CHOICE/VARIETY have changed, you're not stuck with a tiny 737-200 anymore on a San Francisco/Boston or Anchorage/San Diego route, requiring many technical stops. You have no problem crossing the Atlantic or reaching Honolulu with something else than a 757.. Delta, American and United even dumped the 767-200ER in favor of the 737-800 (subsequently the Max-8) and today the routes are also flown with narrowbody Airbuses......... People finding 757 everywere in the US is a mere consequence of 30 years old network optimization... they were valid reasons back then, but today, things have substantially evolved. "The 757 is unmatched in terms of range and power (to lift payload)", that's true only for 1% of routes in the market as of today. For the remaining 99%, the A321NeoLR does the job perfectly, not all routes are 3500+ nm, for those who are, airports usually have 8000+ ft runways, which is fine for A321LR and Max9/10. For 70% of today domestic/region1l network of US airlines, ANY recent A32x/737 type does just fine. Some routes require even bigger capacity, when back then, you had ONY 747, DC10/TriStar or A300, today you have 767/787/777 A330/A350. It's important to remind when Boeing made 737-300 and 400, 757 orders dropped (also because of A320/A321/MD80), and 757 production line shutdown happened when 737NG orders exploded. Today it's even worse, you'll very soon h1ve A321 that outmatches all 737Max series ranges, a plane that 80 of travelers can't tell appart from a 757.. If you believe "a large aging fleet of one type means a successor of that type is needed shortly..!!", you're deeply mistaken. History tells nobody needed a better DC8, nor a better A300, and recently, who wants a better 747, airline-wise speaking? The only unarguable truth about the 757 is that it was the PERFECT replacement for 707-320B/C and 727-200, one magnificent airline that combined the specific advantages of two narrowbody : power to operate on smaller airfields, and range with decent capacity. But the moment efficient engines could also fit well on a 737, combined with ETOPS evolution which the 757 strongly contributed for, the 757 demise was sealed. Range, which is the main reason to support the 757 is only valid in edge cases since we now have a great variety of choices. As the operational management of an airline, ask yourself if you want to purchase a few brand new 757s, or expand your fleet of 787 and continue using them as usual. By the way, from an airline point of view, if you're in position to advise Boeing, which every major airline can do, would you negociate discount for an improved 757 or for an improved 767, which you have a whole bunch in your fleet, why not talk with your competitors beforehand and go secure the matter with Boeing ??? Elsewhere in the world, except for a few Chinese airlines with similar network as continental US, almost nobody, even El Al Israel Airlines is interested in a 757 successor. In total, foreign demand for an upgraded type would not exceed 20 units, Americans will have to help Boeing make profit themselves. Since China already has a deal with Airbus and is planning on mass producing its own midrange narrowbody for the Asian market. Don't get me wrong, I can relate with the love for a specific type, anybody will get upset if challenged on the matter, but if you're not prepared, you'll face decades of upsets ranting Boeing about "where/when/757 successor", especially when Boeing will cancel/postpone, seemingly against all expectations, that middle market 737 successor... The 737Max just reentered service, the 737Max-10, advertised as the A321LR competitor (and true 757 successor in regards to network optimum) is a long awaited character. Unless something very bad happens, the salvation of Boeing remains in continuing selling the Max. Only when a substantial amount of the type, especially the Max9/10 exceed 15 years of age can a serious proposal of a successor make sense, that is, around 2035, for an entry into service around 2040, not in te next 2-4 years..!! What should come earlier is a 767 successor, with just new wings, new engines and undercarriage (787 flavored cockpit and systems), I'm assuming that on the basis of an airline management expectation, not from a traveller point of view, what is greatly missing in the near future is a smaller 787 or A330-800 (and not that heavy, very important, please remove all unnecessary weight), not a larger 737 or A321 (because we still need transatlantic/transpacific range that we can TRADE for cargo on shorter routes, money matters and a narrow body won't do since some of the cargo bays below the main deck are actually occupied by extra fuel tanks on A321XLR and most likely an hypothetical 737Max10ER).
@@StephenKarl_Integral You make good points. I guess what I was getting at is that while, for example, the A321 XLR can do much of what an airline might want out of a 757 as you say, the specs of the plane are not the same. The A321 doesn't have the high altitude/hot weather/short runway abilities the 757 has. And I know you began with the specs not being the only thing to look at, and that's true. But many people seem to think that because the airlines are using, say, the A321 XLR, that the plane must therfore be equal or superior in all respects to the 757. This seems doubly true for Airbus fanboys. Personally, I think that if Boeing made a single aisle plane, like a scaled down Dreamliner, with overpowered engines and such that it could handle long thin routes and land on short runways and handle hot weather and all that, some airines (like Delta) would buy it. And while I'm at it, Boeing could simultaneously develop a new 737 replacementt also modeled on the Dreamliner. They could replace the aging 737 and fill the NMA hole of the 757. The Dreamliner probably replaces the 767 just fine. But admittedly I'm not an engineer or an anlyst for the airlines.
@@davemiller6055 you have valid points, don't worry, 🙂 I'm just adding what I can provide (not an expert, but not a novice though). Actually, a successor to the 737 that can reach 757-200 capabilities (range, capacity and power/hot and high) will be required at some point and will eventually happen, just not in the next future, Boeing don't want to shoot down its Max10 program ahead of time. Yes, of course, 757 shines at airports in the Andes (ex: Bogota) and many high altitude continental US airports such as Salt Lake City or Albuquerque. But when you pick each airline and find what other types they use on these airports and the connecting routes, you also notice 737s (when the range allows it) and... 767s; rarely 787 but unexpectedly, 777s are more common (and of course A330 for those who operate them). It's tricky to fully understand how/why, airlines alliances and freight volume for instance have their importance, also, some kind of "pride" I harldly understand where airlines do not hesitate to put a larger type despite not flying at full capacity... As you said, if Boeing makes a new 757 instead of a new 767, airlines would use 787 (having no choice at that point)... but if the 757 is too small/not enough range, they also must go 787... that's quite a huge gap. But if they make a new 767 instead, airlines would, let's say "downgrade" many routes to A321XLR/Max10, and use the new 767, trading payload for takeoff run when required, not much of a gap compared to a 787-8 where you would have to trade more. The hypothesis is a new 767, meaning new wings and engines, would perform much better than a 767-300ER on high and hot airports with the exact same payload. Economically wise, it's safer (the industry also anticipates the next economical crisis, pointers says a major one harsher than post covid will occur in current decade). Alternatively, on airports with not enough runway, you still can add a stop in the middle of the route for fuel with a 737 or A321 if you really don't have the demand to fill the new 767 or 787, getting a 757 successor is not the only option; this pattern still works worldwide, while over the years, airports have lengthened their runways (so they get certified for even bigger types). Besides, General Electric and Pratt and Withney are waiting for Boeing to stop 767 production, or reengine it, so they can ditch CF6 and PW4000 technologies to invest solely in the latest engines generation, they are ready (though covid deeply annoys the whole industry). Finally, half of the 767 market is outside USA : All Nippon, ANA, Lan Chile, Qantas, Air China, Aeroflot, many african airlines leasings where the 767 is just absolute perfect for low intercontinental demand, operators being Neos, Blue Panorama, EuroAtlantic Airways, Lot Polish... the latest among many tried the 787-8, alike Vietnam Airlines or Uzbekistan Airways, but had regrets, yes, the cabin is much better, but financial efficiency were not attained due to not enough demand along the year, they had to change network and reposition units often, downgrade some destinations from regular service to seasonal 😑 (side note, the only actual game changer appears to be the A350-900, which apparently outmatches the 787 everywhere, you can actually make money without selling all the seats, but that's talks, I can't prove it, I'm just listening, and 787 operators says the -9 is decent, the -8 is garbage especially on domestic/regional routes.. 🤔😑 Should we believe the pros saying that?)
@@davemiller6055 And yes, absolutely agree, the 737 successor should be a single aisle 787. The 787 wing is nearly perfect. With such a new wing, longer landing gears, engine location should not pose any problem, and just dump that L1 door stairs, even in Africa there are equipments now to board/deplane passengers. That L1 stairs was the main reason why the short landing gears. For easy engine and undercarriage system access and maintenance, it's the same, the entire world is now stairs/lifters equipped. And yes, just copy what's good from Airbus, put ego aside, design similar cockpits and flight management systems between all types, it being narrow or widebody, so type certification will be less of a headache. Under the skin, what's still great and efficient from the 737 can just remain the same, but that nose from 707/720/727 should be dropped, current standard is pretty clear : 787, A350, A220, E-Jets, Superjet... they are all the same shape, so 787 nose, 4 huge windshield front and side it is.... ☺️👍
Boeing has said MANY MANY times that they are not going to do a clean sheet MOM design. As early as December, 2023, Boeing publically stated that not only do they have no place to build an all new airliner, they do not intend to do so. With so many orders for the 737-MAX series there is little need for them to do a clean sheet design...at least for now. Once the 737MAX order book starts to get smaller is when they are more likely to look at a new MOM design. So, not only has Boeing said they aren't going to do it, they have said that over and over. Also, 2-3-2 is nothing new, the 767 was a 2-3-2 config and yes, it is narrower than the 787.
Quite simply because that would allow it to fit into the 737/A320 gates that airports have plenty of. The 757 and 767 couldn't do so. That gives airlines flexibility, and flexibility boosts SALES.
Too quickly? :) I'd love a modular wing and body design so they could create a proper 757/737 replacement. If they refine the technology from the 787 I think it would be a treat. However, according to Boeing, they don't even want to start with a clean sheet design before 2030. Sad :(
The clean design they are referring to is a 767 replacement. At the moment, Boeing is making all realistic attempts to save its narrow body market, the 737 that is, since the type is in deep shit due to cutting corners too much to fight Airbus (which got CSeries/A220 on top of). What Boeing still has in the bag is a plan for 767 replacement. But there is no rush for that, because Airbus has no ability to propose something similar, and the moment Airbus tries, one airline will undoubtedly tell Boeing, and Boeing will PROMPTLY respond with a 787 flavored 767 update. This is expected to happen around 2030 (but could begin very soon), when literally all 767 operators will panic, having no successor for the type : A330-800 is too big, 787-8 is too big, A321XLR/737Max10 are too small (and not a twin aisle), and any airline that has more than 10 Boeing 767 don't want to type rate its crew unless there is a DEAL behind, namely, getting it for free in exchange for a 787/767Max package (we can assume Boeing will adopt the same type transition A320 series-A330/A343 between 767Max, 777 and 787 by designing the same cockpit layout). Also, most 767 if not all are used on 2000-4000nm routes, the 787-8 can fly way beyond that, but actually, airlines don't care, range is not the important matter here, rather being a WIDEBODY-like plane that can fly domestic and medium range routes with less demand, or high demand, but two or three flights everyday... you also want a widebody because you don't want multiple 737/A320 with God knows how many crew and spare parts you have to manage and dispatch. That's why it matters "how many seats", you can't have a gap from 225 seats (737) to 360 (787) if you precisely need 290 for a bunch of routes in your network, anything above or below is money lost : too much crew and spare parts if the aircraft is too small, dead weight and burnt fuel if the aircraft is too large, in both case, the traveler pays more to compensate, and the airline is less competitive than those having the right aircraft..
@@StephenKarl_Integral i was only thinking that the 787 is starting from 240 passengers and the current 737 is 140 - 220 in cattle class config. So my imaginary plane would scale 160 - 240 in cattle so you could cover most of the narrow body segment therefore substituting the 757 and also replacing the 737 with a modern plane answering for example the 321XLR. I think the 787 covers the 767 completely so there is not much to do there.
@@victormikecharlie1596 yes and no. All Nippon Airlines, Japan Airlines, Lot Polish Airlines, Ethiopian, Neos, Vietnam Airlines, Qantas, etc. agree that, to some extent, the 787-8 is a good replacement for the 767-300ER, but there are MANY issues with routes with less demand, particularly Asia, Africa and some smaller european destinations. The 787-8 is a tad too big in seating capacity, we're making profit exactly the same way with 767-300ER, not much better as advertised. The 787-9, definitely, is NOT a 767 successor, too large. In so many cases on high demand such as Japan domestic and regional, the goal is to serve a route three times a day, by introducing the 787-8, we ended up ditching the type and servicing routes twice a day with 777-200 til we ordered NEW 767-300ER to put them back there. For routes with less demand, service was gone from daily to 5 times a week, then back to a daily service on holidays... So, yes, 787-8, and to some extent 787-9 are good for 767 replacement on routes like New York London. They are also great for routes initially operated with 777s, but due to lack of demand thanks to covid and Ukraine war, a SMALLER type is now advised. In a sense, the 787 is ASWELL a 777-200ER successor. But *on routes with low demand, the 767-300ER successor definitely does not exist.* USA and its high demand is not representative of the rest of the world, we can expect one to know only about US carriers to not understand, but, on a non-US airline business plan management, the 787 is rather the perfect A330 counterpart, the A330-200/800 being SLIGHTLY larger than the 767-300 just like 787-8, and the A330-300/900 and 787-9 being MUCH MUCH larger than 767-300ER, even tapping in the 777-200ER market. We, airlines, don't want dead weight (empty seats, empty cargo) that don't produce money. => the perfect 767 replacement does not exist, we only have the smallest of larger types as alternatives (787, A330Neo). We hope air travel costs goes cheaper so we can propose lower ticket prices and more people willing to fly 🙃 Side note : the era of flying first class for all middle class citizen is long gone, you only have first class and palace suite on high deman high average citizen revenue routes. In most cases, a middle weird class appeared, called "economy premium", then the business, but no first. The more you add cheaper smaller seats, the more you has to sell ticket, hopefully lower prices would attract more travelers, but, the more you demonstrate how big of a difference there is between a 767-300ER capacity and a 787-8 one. Even Africa finally understood, you could advertise pride by flying bigger, the mandatory single 747 classic in the fleet were proof of that tendency. Reality however teaches you well, so when major airlines around the world phased out their 747-400, they didn't repeat the same mistake.. The actual number of seats matters, a lot, because, you're not loosing money one day, you're actually loosing money everyday, along the years, along the decades...... The basics is, when you don't have the demand, you go smaller, because not only you will fill those seats, but you open more routes in your network for that new type, something less likely to happen with bigger types.
Mmmm let’s think what would this be made of? Any scrap parts we can sling together, get our mates in the FAA to certify it sling in loads of things that we don’t tell buyers or pilots, scrap quality control and most importantly tell everyone we care about safety. Good luck with that.
Boeing is due for a brand new 737 and 757 actually, they already have a 767 replacement which is soo much better and modern... But many said its too big.... and heavy, the Boeing 787.... So lets forget about 767 replacement and concentrate on the 737/ 757 replacement..... The 767 replacement is for when airbus decides to do a A322..... That's just my opinion 😊
The Boeing 807 should be an A380 body mixed with a MD11 or DC-10 tail engine, 30-wheel landing gears, normal A380 and turboprop engine. Tail lights, gear lights, engine lights? With an escalator going to 2nd floor. Like AirlinersLounge said, it will have foldable winglets, dimmable windows, composite material, advanced technology, modern engines Good parts: If the gears don’t go down during landing, pilots can turn on a metal bottom of the fuselage.If the cockpit falls off, the plane will automatically fly to the destination instead of falling into the sea. If the plane has landing malfunctions, the pilots can turn on A BUTTER MODE. A FORKING BUTTER MODE. If the plane doesn’t get into the sky, it will automatically pull up. It’s pull up alarm is “Pull up now 🚨 pull up now 🚨 Ascend, begin climb, Ascend, Begin climb. Ascend. Begin climb.” And if they do not pull up, the plane will automatically pull up. Also if it falls into the sea, it can enable a *SHIP MODE?* And a lot of attacks on enemy planes. The wingtips are very strong. 13 building hits and one could fall off. Bad news, the plane is mostly strong but can break if the nose impacts a power line. Buy it may be the best plane from every Boeing plane ever. This is just a theory
Wonder if it will be the same quality build as the current Boeing lineup that either falls out of the sky or has parts fall off because they aren't assembled completely.
In the same way as the 757 and 767 shares the same type rating, even tho the 757 is a narrow body and the 767 is a widebody, a narrowbody 787, which could be the 797, could share the same type rating as the widebody 787. Even tho one is a widebody and one is a narrowbody. Just like the 757 and 767. Thats what im thinking.
Развлечения
Don't forget to hit that LIKE 👍 button, and subscribe for more regular aviation discussion videos 💙
Ok
Got it😊
But will it fall out of the sky just like the 737 max?
Boeing should focus on getting their quality control in order before launching another model, both the 737-Max and 777X are not going to plan and there are ongoing problems with some versions of the 787. At the moment Boeing quality control is the best selling point for Airbus.
What makes you think that Aerbus is any different I have seen their production lines and they are nothing special. Airbus's sole purpose was to keep large airplane manufacturing capability in Europe. It's like comparing a ford to a chevy there are only so many ways to build an airplane.
To my knowledge Airbus has not yet suffered the humiliation of having a worldwide grounding of an aircraft type and ongoing delays to a new type due to manufacturing issues. As for the number of ways to build an aircraft, there is only one way - correctly.
@@mikedooly7288actually, there are airlines that refuse taking delivery of Boeing aircraft built in Charleston. So there is that.
@@garyroberts6396having a plug blow out on a brand new airplane, says it all.
@@mikedooly7288 How much were you paid by Boeing to make your comment?
To be honest, I don't think Boeing have the finances to even think about starting a new design aircraft, what with 737max delays in certification still on going, 777x certification, they need to get these programs up and running and have some revenue coming back in. And also the market will again change in the next 10 years and require a different type completely.
They most definitely have the finances, primarily because of their large order backlog. Boeing’s most recent year to date revenue was $75 billion USD and that’s up from the low in 2019 of about $58 billion, they have TONS of revenue coming in.
Boeing has, not Boeing have. Boeing is one thing. It is one company. Ask yourself this, how many Boeing companies are there.. 1.. so therefore, Boeing is one company. Try saying Boeing are one company. Sounds stupid
Do not forget the 787 Dreamliner. It has become the nightmare liner because of the way it is manufactured. Parts are flown and shipped in from all over the planet. They are made by many companies all over the world. They are moved by hundreds of freight handlers. Then when they arrive, they do not fit quite right, are damaged, or are the wrong part. The outsourcing of parts looked good on paper. But that is because Boeing is ran by accountants, not engineers. Accountants only know numbers and nothing else. They override the engineers, technicians, and mechanics only because it does not look financially responsible to listen to the engineers, technicians, and mechanics, on paper, nor a spreadsheet. Something must be changed for Boeing to reclaim its former glory. Perhaps looking into their past, they can save their future. Meanwhile, Airbus has an 8 year waiting period on their planes. They struggle to keep up because of the incredible demand they have for their aircraft.
797 is a humid dream.If anything re engine and modernize a 757.
@@indridcold8433 you do realize that every plane is made like that right? Both Airbus and Boeing and every plane maker had suppliers and partners all over the globe. The 787 has not become a nightmare, customers absolutely love it and it’s continuing to be ordered. You’re just talking nonsense bro 😂
I think the 757 is still a VERY viable aircraft in today's market. It boasted a faster take-off to cruising altitude rate then many other jets in it's class. It's also stealthy and very quick in getting to it's destination with those RR engines. And it doesn't need a lot of runway to take-off or land. It's still a jet WAY ahead of it's time like the similar Lockheed L10-11 was.
The L1011 is incredible! Today, only one remains, the Stargazer. That jet could land itself! I think it is 50 years old and still in service. I think it is in service launching satellites into orbit.
L-1011 is way ahead of its time while 757 is 40 years out of date, no one wants super narrow single aisle planes. Back when 757 was new there wasn’t an alternative but now there is A321neo, MC-21, C919 all wider than 757
Many people seem to not know that Boeing explored an updated 757. Before they began work on the 737 MAX program, they reached out to their customers to inquire what the interest in an updated and re-engined 757 would be and it was not good. Reportedly only United and a couple Asian customers signaled any interest. But every single 737 operator was strongly interested in an updated 737. So that is what they focused on. The market for long range narrowbody planes is small, that is evidenced by the order number for the A321XLR. That segment is not worth the resources it would take to make a 757 MAX.
@@FlyByWire1Delta also would’ve loved an Updated 757… But if United And Delta were gonna ordered 100s of them, Boeing could’ve built it..
@@mraviatorboii2510 doing an updated 757 would’ve required more money and time than the 737 MAX took. And that’s just because the 757 is much older than the 737NG is. Boeing probably realized they can’t do both so they went with the MAX. Selling a couple hundred is not sufficient to keep an updated 757 program going. Meanwhile Boeing has sold over 5900 737 MAX planes. The decision to focus on the 737 was the best for the company in the long run. That’s just the truth.
Sounds a lot more like a 767 replacement than a 757 replacement. Either way, I am excited!
thats what im saying
I like commercial aircraft like everyone else on here, but I think that you’re getting excited over the 797nis a bit O.T.T…..!!😊
737 need to be gone
The seating arrangement seems more 767 than 757. Either way definitely enjoyed riding on both and looking forward to what ever they come up with.
They need to restore public trust in the operating systems.
Time for Airbus to make an A390 😂
I loved flying in the 757. I think Boeing pulled the plug too soon on the 757. Airlines have held on to their 757's because they can fill them on longer flights to less popular destinations. The 757 fills a few niches.
How could it be "too soon" to pull the plug on something that sold a grand total of 7 units in its last half-decade of offering? If anything, they didn't pull it soon enough.
How could it be "too soon" to pull the plug on something that sold a grand total of 7 units in its last half-decade of offering? If anything, they didn't pull it soon enough.
umm idk if these 2 people are the same people just on different accounts
A lorf people say they should have made a 757MAX instead of the 737 MAX.
Airlines pulled the plug. Because they were expensive to buy, and expensive to operate. Airlines would rather serve markets that work efficiently rather than cater to markets that don’t. If a city lair doesn’t work, then don’t go there. Fly something economically, and set your route structure to work that out.
folding wing tips would be useless on a narrow body
Before the merger or acquisition of MD, Boeing designers and engineers built great aircrafts but the 757 and 767 in my opinion was and still is an outstanding aircraft designed and built after the acquisition of MD, Boeing needs to shelf the 737 design.
Maybe I didn't fully understand the comment, but the 757/767 was designed and built long before the MD acquisition. The only clean-sheet plane designed/built after the acquisition is the 787.
With the 737 Max door mishap I m not so sure Boeing d lead the market again
The Douglas MD gave a lot of problems but it seems Boeing is not much into building safe planes anymore
Boeing has a lot of corporate power, bending arms of politicians and the FAA, spends huge amounts on lobbyists-WHY? Is their management so bad now, it has to resort to these methods?
MD brought much to the table, not just the B777, but the C-17. Douglas already had designs of a new generation MD-11 with only two engines.
Even though Aer Lingus got a lot of transatlantic milage from the 757 on the likes of Shannon-Boston route, I think IAG will stick with an all Airbus fleet for Aer Lingus to keep commonality and save on pilot training costs if or when the 797 does come to market. That's just my opinion though.
So this appears to be a 767 replacement instead of a 757 replacement as this will have a very similar twin aisle 2-3-2 seating configuration to the 767. Personally I think this would be a mistake as this would be too close to the 787 in size. I think they should stick to a modern 757 with a 3-3 seating but keep a common type rating to the 787.
The 797 is expected to be a narrowbody plane with a 3-3 configuration. It won’t be a widebody like some are suggesting. The purpose of the 797 is to replace the 737 family. Boeing is hoping to merge the best of both worlds by building a plane that has the range of the 757 but also has capacity levels offered by the 737 family.
@@FlyByWire1no that would not be the name. It would be the 737 replacement that you are referring to.
@@chunchoi4434 “797” is just used to refer to Boeing’s NMA. It would replace the 737 family but also compete in the market for the 757. That’s what my comment was saying.
Thank You, makes no sense. If they want a two aisle smaller equip. Make a B787-200 😄
*767*
*twin*
Seating sounds like a 767 & the best configuration for travelers if so. Let's hope.
The 787 is actually closer in size to the 767, not the 757.
Correct, but the lack of a true 757 successor has left a gap
@@AirlinersLounge By analyzing American/Delta/United overall domestic/medium haul and transatlantic network (that's nearly one thousand routes), and trying to get in the shoes of those airlines, this is what comes up :
- we already have a bunch of Airbus narrow bodies fleet, qualified/certified crews, due to mergers, and we can't exchange A32x for 737 or 757..
- Airbus gave us a very generous deal by qualifying our crew, sometimes almost for free (because we also have A330Neo, A350 and eventually A220).
- but it's also thanks to Boeing to have come up with the 737Max, despite all problems and delays, we are talking about the 737 fleet ground and flight crew, which is HUGE. Firing them or making them pass another type certificate (it being a 757Max or Airbus narrow body) is very time consuming, highly disruptive, and is a risk in terms of flight philosophy if we were to go from Boeing to Airbus ASAP, we would fire many who fail to pass. So, we decide to stick with the 737Max as long as it has acceptable safety and economic records.
- the network by the way favors the 757... we ASKED Boeing to make that plane. But, since, we learned to accept the fact that the A321 is nearly the exact same capacity (80% of customers cannot tell appart 757 and A321), the A321LR is nearly the exact required RANGE (yes, that's true), the A321XLR covers ALL existing routes, we actually don't need that extra 1000nm of the 757, honestly. And if sometimes we do, which actually happens, truth is as demonstrated by our operations, the demand on all those longer routes already allows us to operate LARGER planes with MORE seats, like 787, or 777, and A350. We even connect twice a day with those types, so the 757 despite being upgraded has no say here. Sometimes, even the 767-400ER was way better.
- by the time Boeing proposes a 757Max, we would have either migrated to an all Airbus A321XLR fleet or just introduced new 737Max-10, or somewhere in-between. What we would suggest at that point is either Boeing continuing the 737 type rating, which won't happen due to public opinion, or a substantially modernized A321XLR with new wings and engines, very likely, without any type rating issue, and potentially expect the LARGER A322Neo which would have ZERO competitor. Yes, we would order a BUNCH of them..
- even if some of the above are speculations, they all start from solid facts (don't believe me, but please, GO STUDY the network, the demand, observe the dispatched fleet, the number of flights per day/week and the average seat occupancy, if you don't, I wouldn't back off my 10 years of detailed monitoring). Therefore, it is highly expected Boeing to be very RELUCTANT to work on a new 757 : a new 757-200 will alr3ady have strong established competitors (A321(X)LR and 737Max9/10). A new 757-300 will face a very possible A322NeoLR counterattack from Airbus, meaning something in between, like a 757Max-8 (between Max7 and Max9), would be irrelevant. If Boeing would propose an even larger variant, like a 757Max-9 or -10, that's a narrow body 767-300ER, and physics will tell they will have less range, but if they have decent range, I (Delta/United/American) would ask for a 767Max INSTEAD, have common sense God1mmit Boeing! It's not by chance we declined your shitty 787-3, just build the right plane for the right routes already!!
- of course, I (Delta/United/American) understand my customers (ie : YOU!) love the 757, and HATE the 737 since the Max cringy embarrassment. Seems I (United/American/Delta) have no choice but... ultimately go FULL AIRBUS NARROW BODY. But that's something I can't advertise. It will just be the same as for the A350, when the time comes, people will fly Airbus, they like it or not, it's not up to them to decide.!! If they want to fly Boeing, they'll wait for the 767Max.. 2030 it is.. It's somewhat funny Boeing understands that and already accepted reality by shutting down the 757 production line, and betting all on maintaining 737 descendance... turned out two crashed nearly killed the line, but in 2024, it appears 737 is still rocking..
You got it right!
revolutionary is not the term i would use to describe a possible 797 at the moment... neither the 2-3-2 layout nor any announced range/capacity/efficiency combination are particularely new things... just a very good offer for the middle of the market
Can someone explain the benefit of dimmable windows? These seem to be controlled completely by the cabin staff, and I've found on long haul they set them semi-dimmed within about half an hour of getting in the air, and don't clear them until about the same before landing, making having a window seat almost pointless as you can barely ever see outside.
Of all the planes I've flown (707, 727, 737, 757, A319, A320), the 757 was by far my favorite flight. It was great at going ballistic and hauling ass to cruising altitude. Great airframe.
Just by looking at it, I feel safe and comfy to travel in it anywhere. I can't say the same for flying over the Atlantic, nor West Coast to Hawaii on a 737, nor an A321. I consider those for Domestic/National travel and Tuna Cans for Long, long over the water travel. I will never book a trip over the water on a 737, A320 family.
737 is by far the least comfortable plane I've flown, clamped seats and narrow aisle, A320 is much better. Would be a blessing if it is replaced by twin aisle 797 (737 has giving Boeing a bad name afterall)
You have to be kidding. Have you ever heard of the 767? It's cabin layout? Now there is serious conversation happening about a re-engined 767 since they are still popular as cargo planes. I think the 797 will likely be less of a 767 and more like a next generation plane with new wing design, etc. I think it will be a design that will revolutionize the NMA and the replace the 737.
Was thinking the same thing. I wanted to smash my screen not hearing the mention of the 767 here 😂
Don’t get me wrong, there are many “favorite” aircraft but mine has always been the 767.
The smaller containers meant for 767 and DC10, the wide body and ETOPS/range make it a very universal aircraft.
I like the 777 but my favorite has always been 767.
I agree, the 767 is highly underrated. Especially the 767-400ER because it makes use of the 777 technology and from the inside looks just like a narrowed 777. The 767-400ER was also the very first wide-body I've ever flown in and it'll always hold a very special place in my heart that no other airplane can even come anywhere near occupying!
As. a Brit my favourite Boeing of the past was always the 747 and the 777 together with the sports car 757! Today, is a different matter, very sad. Maybe they should call Boeing. WALL ST.
@@ChrisZoomER I've recently flown in a 767-400ER and it was a good experience
@@EuropeanRailfan I flew in United’s 767-400ER back in 2015 and it was the flight of a lifetime!
Your going to blow up one day. Best of luck on your channel!!
Very good explained, subscribing!
Many thanks, welcome to our channel 🫶
What needs to be mentioned here is that the 757 is said to be a dreamliner to fly - takeoff characteristics like a fighter jet without the instability. How much does this contribute to its current staying power, I'm not sure, but it can't hurt. This will be a tall order for a modern economy-designed jetliner to achieve, and if it's ignored, it might disappoint. As a side note, the last passenger liner with such a reputation was the Lockheed "Connie" Constellation (1949), and it's still a legend, with so many firsts under its belt.
Whatever they come up with, if the "new" plane somewhat ressembles the dreamliner and/or is marketed as a smaller version of the dreamliner, I am all for it. Because i recently travelled with one and it is by far my favorite experience, and call me dumb but the sleek look of it and the dimmable windows (and its global comfort) swept me like the A380 did back in the day.
Still worry about the corporate culture at Boeing and if any new plane would put flight safety as a priority.
Go Boeing GO
The industry needs an aircraft with a capacity of 220 -240 with a range of 5000 to 6000 nm with low operating costs, seat configuration and training costs are a secondary issue
Boeing desparately needs honest management. Management, like Boeing of old. "New Aircraft" means nothing if people are afraid to fly.
Im hoping for a blended wing body.
Thanks for including AirBaltic’s state of art Airbus A220-300. That is awesome aircraft. Designed by Bombardier, then thanks to complaints from Boeing program was overtaken by Airbus. And that is good for both Airbus and Bombardier - Airbus is sales and marketing powerhouse, and that enables much bigger sales than Bombardier has planned.
We love the A220s for sure 👌
Bombardier now has nothing to do with the aircraft they designed
@@applejacks74 yes it is like that. Yet it was designed and developed by them, yet for the program and jobs it is good that Airbus took control on this. Bomardier had huge debts.
757 is such a great looking airplane
Totally
I think they better get the Max series right first before thinking about another one
Exciting
You maybe see it airborne by 2040 if it’s launched, the size and the configuration seems to be appealing
The 2-3-2 layout reminds me of the old 767 which was a great long haul plane especially if you had the middle seat because you only had to clime over a single person. I never understood the 757 for long haul flights. I once flew from Paris to NYC on an AA 757 and it was awful. When it was time for meal service, passengers needing to use the bathroom had to contend with flight crew and their carts.
That will be great,Boeing just have to take their time and do the job properly. No rush,no overbooking, they could recover.
After the recent 737 incident door plug, will they ever get anything to sell?! Ever since they fired all the engineers in charge and replaced them with bean counters, nothing but crashes, delays, and made shoddy! Their reputation will never be the same!
Awesome Video 😊
The 2-3-2 layout is 30+ years old thanks to the 767. I don’t know if Boeing is still considering it, but at one point there was discussion of a 2-2-2 layout, which would be all new, with same number of seats across as 757 but quicker boarding.
757neo would be nice! My favourite narrowbody
5:02 for this part, they should just do this. Copy and paste the 787 cockpit into the 797 but it’s smaller to fit with the cabin.
If it will be a 2-3-2 configuration then it's more likely to be a replacement to the B767 and not the B757
They should probably fix the planes already in service before starting new models.
A 2 - 2 - 2 seating twin isle would be best for passengers. The middle seat is unwanted unless you’re traveling as a family.
Unfortunately there is no market for it as a single aisle aircraft is much cheaper in every single aspect of operation.
Basically a 767 2.0!
I always welcome new Boing aircraft!
Boeing needs to do what General Dynamics did in the 1990s, decide what their core business is and sell off the rest. If you can’t be #1, or #2 trying to be number one, sell it. Boeing needs to focus on re-learning how to build reliable and safe aircraft.
I currently avoid flying in Boeing’s 787 and new variants of the 737, years ago I avoided DC-9’s, and DC-10’s (for obvious reasons at the time; see ‘cargo hatch’ design flaw).
Boeing is the best advertiser for airbus!
The 797 is going to look like a narrowbody version of the 787 pretty much 💯💯💯💯💯
The 797 IS going to a narrowbody plane, I’m not sure where people got the idea that it was gonna be a widebody. That was never the plan.
The a320 family is just such masterpiece and is so successful, Boeing has just got them self into a big mess and I think coming out with a completely different aircraft is not what they need.
Boeing literally made more money last year than Airbus and it has a backlog order book of over 6000 aircraft valued at over $450 billion USD. This whole “Boeing is in a huge mess” is nothing but dramatics. They will be just fine 😂
TLDR : betting on a new 757 will KILL Boeing Commercial!! Please, STOP begging for a new 757 if you don't want Boeing to DIE!
I don't understand : people are COMPLAINING about the 737 being a century old technology, the 787 being a failure (really?), the 747 being out of place/no need for an upgraded version and the 777-X a mere recycled 777..... Yet, they DON'T WANT Boeing to make an entirely new model..!!
Boeing has NO CHOICE, strategically speaking, but make a SEEMINGLY NEW model!! If Boeing were to make a stretched 737 fuselage with new wings, engines and landing gears, the typical 737 nose and tail MUST be dumped to NEVER show the face of that design again, simply put, a scaled down 787-10 design enforced on the 737 fuselage factory line.
Furthermore, I have a strong feeling people talking about a successor to the 757 are American citizen. Yeah, the entire world know you (American) love that plane, fast, reliable, perfect in so many ways, but ONLY IF THE ENTIRE WORLD WAS LIKE USA. Elsewhere, this aircraft is pretty shit!
If Boeing were smart, looking at American, United, Delta (etc.) that are US operators of 95% of the ENTIRE passenger fleet produced 757s, airlines that are ALL switching to the already available, reliable and sustainable A321(X)LR for many decades to come, potentially upgradeable with NEW wings and engines later on (yeah, Airbus knows how to do so), it's not in a successor of the 757 that Boeing should think of! Don't mix your love of that plane with economical strategies, learn to love the A321 instead, and potentially the upcoming 737Max10, which will directly compete with an upgraded 757-200. BTW, did you knew the front section of a 757 fuselage (except the nose) comes from the 737 production line, and the aft section from the 707/727? Do you understand the 757 is basically a 737 with new wings, engines, landing gears, and a 767 nose? I don't get how people can love the 757, but not the 737, they are basically the same design, and the 737NG wings is basically a merge between the classic 737 wings and the 757's.
Last, there is no such thing as an entirely NEW model. Looks are new, but under the skin, everything is pretty much the same, just improved or fixed. It's not because it has more composites that there is absolutely nothing picked from older designs. The 787 took 70% of its technology from the 777-200 and the 747. The 737 Max MCAS was from the 767 refueler... If Boeing were to design a "new" plane, 80% of it would remain existing technologies, half of what's new will go into cosmetics (shape, cabin configuration, seats...) and the rest will be actual new things, like SpaceX Starlink faster Internet, AI learning flight management, etc. Nothing really new will come up on how you design and build a center wingbox tank, or floor strengthening components, or cabin insulation (...) they will ALL directly derive from 737, 767, 787... because, that's how you make money, you don't rebuild an entire factory line for each new model, you reuse what exist, Airbus does exactly the same.
@@StephenKarl_Integralif you don’t understand people’s love for the 757…you shouldn’t be on a airplane enthousiast page.
@@VeniVidiAjax A true aviation enthusiast loves every plane and does never ever ask stupid questions like "Airbus or Boeing" or "757 or A321". A pro aviation enthusiast goes deep in understanding how the industry works, learns to deal with reality and accept many things even if they must come to an end, like how much one loves Concorde, it's now history and sweet memories.
I said "Americans love the 757, the rest of the world doesn't", also, "learn to love the A321 lineage", I never said "learn to HATE the 757". I reckon what I said suggest "I have a deep hatred of that plane" and that upsets you very much to the point you decide I must shut up and leave, but that's an assumption, you don't know how much I really appreciate the 757, and me to shut up or leaving is out of the question.
The 757 is a wonderful plane, we all know the characteristics, but what makes it better than another narrow body are :
- its size, more spacious (despite exactly the same cabin engineering as a 737), it actually gives the impression it's larger and more comfortable.
- its size, that puts the engines farther, inducing less vibrations in the cabin, very peaceful trip
- its size, and the number of doors, inducing more dividers in seat ranges, yet more spacing, easier to deplane than 737
- its powerplant (we ignore the initial old RR on the first production units), basically a stretched 737 on steroids, now you fly the biggest plane on this airport, and you never ever have anxiety climbing with one engine inop. Also new APU, less noise, less vibrations (improved aft fuselage insulation, on 737, this was achieved only with Max series)
- its range, thanks to its size (larger wings, larger tanks), you fly with 757 everywhere to almost anywhere, the more you fly it, the more you love it, it becomes part of your identity, ie, the ideal philosophy of travel you're identifying yourself in. That's very normal, similarly, lambda people who flew only Boeing are prone to develop hatred for Airbus.
- a much spacious cockpit than the 737 with huge windshields, because that's also a 767 cockpit, almost, everybody here knows you go downstairs to get there, that's peculiar.
- one of the strongest and advanced landing gears (many had doubts), twin bogey, softer touchdown despite firm contact, very comfortable
- much greater redundancy than any of its predecessors (except the 747 in a few cases and the TriStar), as reliable as ever
- perfectly balanced wing surfaces design, unmatched performances on short, medium and long haul, yet, still smaller in wingspan than a 707-320/DC8, no usual airport had to upgrade infrastructure, and the lowest drag ratio among classic twin engines config (except 737-200), very efficient cruise performance.
- outstanding spare parts dispatch by Boeing, thanks to all major US airlines cooperation operating the type, hardly any maintenance delay
- cosmetics is a personal matter, but for those who love low hanging non pointy noses like DC8/DC9 or TriStar (later on A320), the 757 is indeed the sexiest looking of them all, what a beautiful plane.
- almost same type rating as the 767, airlines were delighted (note : people think A320/A330/A340 type rating commonality was an Airbus innovation, they are deeply mistaken, but what matters is "Airbus copies good things from Boeing, Boeing shouldn't be ashamed to copy everything good from Airbus)
- much simplified systems with greater automation and mechanical/hydraulic/electric/electronic help. Not only for the flight crew, but also for cabin and ground crew, what Boeing brought as a wonder of innovations at that time on both 757 and 767 was UNPRECEDENTED.
- also, from companies designing seats and cabin layouts, they've put in their top most professionalism (you're launching two new types at the same time), noone could believe a 707 cabin could be that beautiful. The same happenned for Airbus with the A330/A340, then Boeing reiterate the feat with the 787.
- any American jet traveller in the 90s-2000-2010 era has probably more wonderful travel and vacation memories flying 757 than ANY OTHER TYPE. Even 747 is no match, how can one boast more about anything else than 757 that brought him/her to fine sand sunny beaches, daughter's graduation, Thanksgiving or new year eve...
.................
That's the magic of a thoroughly studied question about the best aircraft to build, decision taken 40 years ago. A further democratization of air travel making the world much smaller multiplying the amount of direct destinations by a factor of 5..!! That's what you call an outstanding planning, thanks to United, Delta, Northwest, Continental, American, Air China, British Airways, Avianca... and many more, some through leasing companies and banks, and of course, Boeing, when, at the time, talks were more focused on doing great for the entire industry and its customers than making solo money by trying to sabotage others.
I would tell you, even the most obscure "failure" deserve at least a 500 pages novel, an entire row in a library wouldn't suffice to detail the wonders the 757 brought to the world. I absolutely support that. I'll never say to anyone "hate a specific aircraft", instead, I will repeat "love them all and have respect for every manufacturer", even if you're American and patriot, learn more about russian aviation industry... an advice from a former Boeing fanboy who learned to move on two decades ago.
The sad thing however, and that's the whole point of my post, is people mixing their personal feelings (toward a specific type or manufacturer or through patriotism) with reality, making them build assumptions and empty wishes, spread them and mutually maintaining the pace. What happens later on? Nothing they wished for actually happens, everybody is perplexed, what, how, why..?? Example : the moment you see a 2+3+2 seating config, what plane you think of? Not once this video pointed out "it's a 767 successor", that's reality denial, because... 757, "we want a new 757.." And Boeing is absolutely aware people (Americans) are waiting for it, but Boeing knows the industry better than any of us. The 757 was born in a context you only had 737-200, DC9, then to go transcontinental without a stop, you had 707s and DC8, then if you want capacity, you had DC10, TriStar, A300B and 747. What was missing, precisely, what was the best aircraft, 40 years AGO. There wasn't 737Max9, no A321XLR, no 767-300ER, no ETOPS.
Don't mix your feelings and reality. Enforcing a decision to build a 757 successor today will have consequences :
- it renders the 737Max10 program irrelevant : the Max10 powerplant is too weak to operate on high and hot terrain at max capacity, better use existing 737Max8/9 and A321(X)LR, and wait for that new 757. Boeing isn't a fool (despite the recent drama), for the company, the Max10 *_is_* the 757 successor already. For Boeing, if the public can say "if there is no 767 successor, use larger 787", that means it's equivalent to "if there's no 757 successor, use larger 767".
- because we (airlines) have no new 757 for an extra 10 years, instead, we order MORE A321 and Max9, money doesn't wait, and only order a few 757Max for the routes that cannot be directly operated by existing fleet. That's not how Boeing will reiterate the wonderful order log of the 757.
- how many 737 and A320 series that could fly direct did we had 30 years ago, and how many of them do we have today, continental US speaking? How many of them will we have in 10 years? Can Boeing convince airlines, despite the great variety of choices today and the increasingly difficulty in profitability in the industry, that by 2050, the 4 major US airlines will absolutely require 2000 units of the new type on top of the existing fleet of 737 and A321, at the precise moment everybody is phasing out its huge fleet of 767-300ER?
- in the industry you don't enforce one ideal case then take blows head on later, that was the 737Max syndrome. Instead, you observe an entire system in motion, aging 757s are not the main character here, quite far, we observe what potential plan the opponent has (Airbus), if Boeing has 10 years to make an entirely new plane, Airbus also has 10 years to make an entirely new plane. If Boeing has a couple year to reinstall an entire factory line, Airbus... well, Airbus already have the A321 factory line operative, they have one year headstart, all they have to do is engineering toolings for new wings and undercarriage and propose a stretched variant dubbed A322 :/
@@VeniVidiAjax Be factual, have common sense by putting irrelevant matters aside (emotions, off topic, grammar, since english is my 3rd tongue, don't bother picking at spelling or grammar errors). If you make an assumption on point, clarify : "do you hate the 757 that much?" If challenged on opinions, don't ask one to shut up or leave, bring counter facts so everyone enthusiasts an pro here can crosscheck, it's the internet, if one doesn't like discussions, he/she disables comments and never ask for thoughts, likes and subscription !
Why the next 757 is needed? Saying "current fleet is aging" is not an answer, you can use what already works and will be available shortly, the only valid part of that answer is answering to "how many 757 do we need to operate the routes A321LR/XLR/Max10 can't fly? The answer is "very few", so few that's not how you convince Boeing who needs to sell 2000+ units to proceed while Airbus won't stay idle. And China, what China will do? Will chinese airlines buy 757Max like 30 years ago, or select the next improved Airbus from their latest local factory ? Do British Airways get new 757 or go Airbus? What about Iberia, Condor, El Al Israel, Ethiopian, Avianca... What are the odds, based on their current fleet/crew/maintenance deals, and their near future plans?
What are airlines actual expectations for their 767 fleet replacement, or do they expect Boeing to continue 767-300ER production and spare parts supply for two more decades, General Electric and Pratt and Withney to maintain previous engine generation support for 3 decades? Or should everyone ditch 767-300ER in favor of 787-8, or go A330-800... Or ask Boeing to upgrade both 757 and 767? The Boeing 757 is one little concern in the huge complexity of all actors, factors and uncertainties involved. Can you afford to proceed when there will be those who will abandon ship at first big problem?
Anyway, it doesn't matter at this point (2024), multiple variables can change til the day Boeing could announce to have made profits on its next new model (actually, 737Max10 and 777-X has to prove their worth, failure to be profitable will cripple plans on new model, it being 757 or whatever). Please note what I say is of importance for those who love Boeing and want the Max lineage to shine for decades. Failure to take the right decision will create a new Boeing drama... I wouldn't say anything if I were only an Airbus fanboy and let Boeing do as it pleases, backed up by "get us new 757", that's the main reason why I was crude in my first post. Don't you want Boeing to stop the mess already, be humble and take good decisions? Boeing is already giving hints on a twin aisle, is letting discussions of reengined 767 go public, but to no avail, "we want a narrow body.."
Boeing needs to do more on their quality.
is this one held together with Airfix glue ?
Looks like an updated 727 stretch.
does economy class get working doors and windows or are those gonna cost extra
It's not going to happen because there are far bigger issues than just the type rating.
1) Boeing is still busy getting the 737-10 and 777-X certified.
2) The top priority for Boeing is to get their QA issues sorted out.
3) Until 1 and 2 are solved and they can increase their sales and deliveries, they simply cannot afford a risky clean-sheet design.
4) A 7-abrest cabin is not efficient (one additional aisle for just one single more seat per row)
5) Airbus has already captured a large part of the MoM and the 757-replacement market with the A321.
6) Whatever Boing does, Airbus can respond very quickly to kill Boeing's business case, e.g. with a A322 (re-winged and stretched A321). Even if such a model will be less efficient and not sell as well as the 797, it will be far cheaper to develop and operate.
Boeing needs to focus on fixing current issues first before jumping into a new major project like this. Customer's trust in your products is important.
2-3-2 is a "totally new" seating configuration? Have you never heard of the 767? In fact, I find it odd that this video doesn't even mention the 767 which is much more similar to this new design concept vs. the 757.
The A321 isn't a true replacement of the 757. It can't do some of the things the 757 can do. The MAX isn't a replacement either.
People have been taught to look at specifications and compare them, the higher the better... That's the lowest level of understanding of the aviation industry, but for the public, it's fine. Reality is, you look at the market fisrt, who/how many are willing to pay/send goods, you deduce the demand, you anticipate concurrents, then you identify your part, what you can realistically grab, to finally DEFINE the desired capacity and characteristics of the perfect aircraft for that route. At this point, you haven't decided Airbus or Boeing, yet, 757, 737, A321 or whatever. You do the same for every routes, and finally you come up with the optimal set of desired characteristics. Only then you look at what Airbus and Boeing and whoever else have in catalogs. And, not all routes requires the maximum range of a 757, quite the OPPOSITE, only a FEW require that range. Meaning, if something already doing well like a 737Max9/10 or A321(X)LR is available, you DON'T need a 757, even a Max one.
Bear in mind, when airlines like Delta, United, Northwest and American wanted a 220 seat mid range capacity for point to point connexion to enhance their network with a better service, what was available, historically speaking? Narrowbody wise, you had 737-200, aging DC8, nice DC9-40 and 50, but except large and fuel hungry DC8, no twin engine had ETOPS and sufficient range, and you had to go DC10, A300 (got ETOPS thanks to PanAm if I'm not mistaken) and Tristars (too large) instead. That's WHY airlines asked Boeing to design BOTH the 757-200 and the 767-200 (not even the ER). Airbus responded with the A310-200, no wonder why Delta flew the type for a while, because there was nothing else. The 757 got there because there was a potential sell for thousands of the type.
What is to be understood here is the seemingly SUCCESS of the 757 is the result of a context (era and geography) with no choice (aircraft with similar desired capabilites) to the point airlines asked specifically for a plane with precisely those characteristics (and they talked with each over beforehand). Today, and in the near future, the context is drastically different : routes have changed, demand have changed, ETOPS/EROPS have changed, CHOICE/VARIETY have changed, you're not stuck with a tiny 737-200 anymore on a San Francisco/Boston or Anchorage/San Diego route, requiring many technical stops. You have no problem crossing the Atlantic or reaching Honolulu with something else than a 757.. Delta, American and United even dumped the 767-200ER in favor of the 737-800 (subsequently the Max-8) and today the routes are also flown with narrowbody Airbuses.........
People finding 757 everywere in the US is a mere consequence of 30 years old network optimization... they were valid reasons back then, but today, things have substantially evolved. "The 757 is unmatched in terms of range and power (to lift payload)", that's true only for 1% of routes in the market as of today. For the remaining 99%, the A321NeoLR does the job perfectly, not all routes are 3500+ nm, for those who are, airports usually have 8000+ ft runways, which is fine for A321LR and Max9/10. For 70% of today domestic/region1l network of US airlines, ANY recent A32x/737 type does just fine. Some routes require even bigger capacity, when back then, you had ONY 747, DC10/TriStar or A300, today you have 767/787/777 A330/A350.
It's important to remind when Boeing made 737-300 and 400, 757 orders dropped (also because of A320/A321/MD80), and 757 production line shutdown happened when 737NG orders exploded. Today it's even worse, you'll very soon h1ve A321 that outmatches all 737Max series ranges, a plane that 80 of travelers can't tell appart from a 757.. If you believe "a large aging fleet of one type means a successor of that type is needed shortly..!!", you're deeply mistaken. History tells nobody needed a better DC8, nor a better A300, and recently, who wants a better 747, airline-wise speaking?
The only unarguable truth about the 757 is that it was the PERFECT replacement for 707-320B/C and 727-200, one magnificent airline that combined the specific advantages of two narrowbody : power to operate on smaller airfields, and range with decent capacity. But the moment efficient engines could also fit well on a 737, combined with ETOPS evolution which the 757 strongly contributed for, the 757 demise was sealed. Range, which is the main reason to support the 757 is only valid in edge cases since we now have a great variety of choices. As the operational management of an airline, ask yourself if you want to purchase a few brand new 757s, or expand your fleet of 787 and continue using them as usual. By the way, from an airline point of view, if you're in position to advise Boeing, which every major airline can do, would you negociate discount for an improved 757 or for an improved 767, which you have a whole bunch in your fleet, why not talk with your competitors beforehand and go secure the matter with Boeing ???
Elsewhere in the world, except for a few Chinese airlines with similar network as continental US, almost nobody, even El Al Israel Airlines is interested in a 757 successor. In total, foreign demand for an upgraded type would not exceed 20 units, Americans will have to help Boeing make profit themselves. Since China already has a deal with Airbus and is planning on mass producing its own midrange narrowbody for the Asian market.
Don't get me wrong, I can relate with the love for a specific type, anybody will get upset if challenged on the matter, but if you're not prepared, you'll face decades of upsets ranting Boeing about "where/when/757 successor", especially when Boeing will cancel/postpone, seemingly against all expectations, that middle market 737 successor... The 737Max just reentered service, the 737Max-10, advertised as the A321LR competitor (and true 757 successor in regards to network optimum) is a long awaited character. Unless something very bad happens, the salvation of Boeing remains in continuing selling the Max. Only when a substantial amount of the type, especially the Max9/10 exceed 15 years of age can a serious proposal of a successor make sense, that is, around 2035, for an entry into service around 2040, not in te next 2-4 years..!! What should come earlier is a 767 successor, with just new wings, new engines and undercarriage (787 flavored cockpit and systems), I'm assuming that on the basis of an airline management expectation, not from a traveller point of view, what is greatly missing in the near future is a smaller 787 or A330-800 (and not that heavy, very important, please remove all unnecessary weight), not a larger 737 or A321 (because we still need transatlantic/transpacific range that we can TRADE for cargo on shorter routes, money matters and a narrow body won't do since some of the cargo bays below the main deck are actually occupied by extra fuel tanks on A321XLR and most likely an hypothetical 737Max10ER).
@@StephenKarl_Integral
You make good points. I guess what I was getting at is that while, for example, the A321 XLR can do much of what an airline might want out of a 757 as you say, the specs of the plane are not the same. The A321 doesn't have the high altitude/hot weather/short runway abilities the 757 has.
And I know you began with the specs not being the only thing to look at, and that's true. But many people seem to think that because the airlines are using, say, the A321 XLR, that the plane must therfore be equal or superior in all respects to the 757. This seems doubly true for Airbus fanboys.
Personally, I think that if Boeing made a single aisle plane, like a scaled down Dreamliner, with overpowered engines and such that it could handle long thin routes and land on short runways and handle hot weather and all that, some airines (like Delta) would buy it. And while I'm at it, Boeing could simultaneously develop a new 737 replacementt also modeled on the Dreamliner. They could replace the aging 737 and fill the NMA hole of the 757. The Dreamliner probably replaces the 767 just fine.
But admittedly I'm not an engineer or an anlyst for the airlines.
@@davemiller6055 you have valid points, don't worry, 🙂 I'm just adding what I can provide (not an expert, but not a novice though). Actually, a successor to the 737 that can reach 757-200 capabilities (range, capacity and power/hot and high) will be required at some point and will eventually happen, just not in the next future, Boeing don't want to shoot down its Max10 program ahead of time. Yes, of course, 757 shines at airports in the Andes (ex: Bogota) and many high altitude continental US airports such as Salt Lake City or Albuquerque. But when you pick each airline and find what other types they use on these airports and the connecting routes, you also notice 737s (when the range allows it) and... 767s; rarely 787 but unexpectedly, 777s are more common (and of course A330 for those who operate them). It's tricky to fully understand how/why, airlines alliances and freight volume for instance have their importance, also, some kind of "pride" I harldly understand where airlines do not hesitate to put a larger type despite not flying at full capacity... As you said, if Boeing makes a new 757 instead of a new 767, airlines would use 787 (having no choice at that point)... but if the 757 is too small/not enough range, they also must go 787... that's quite a huge gap. But if they make a new 767 instead, airlines would, let's say "downgrade" many routes to A321XLR/Max10, and use the new 767, trading payload for takeoff run when required, not much of a gap compared to a 787-8 where you would have to trade more. The hypothesis is a new 767, meaning new wings and engines, would perform much better than a 767-300ER on high and hot airports with the exact same payload. Economically wise, it's safer (the industry also anticipates the next economical crisis, pointers says a major one harsher than post covid will occur in current decade). Alternatively, on airports with not enough runway, you still can add a stop in the middle of the route for fuel with a 737 or A321 if you really don't have the demand to fill the new 767 or 787, getting a 757 successor is not the only option; this pattern still works worldwide, while over the years, airports have lengthened their runways (so they get certified for even bigger types). Besides, General Electric and Pratt and Withney are waiting for Boeing to stop 767 production, or reengine it, so they can ditch CF6 and PW4000 technologies to invest solely in the latest engines generation, they are ready (though covid deeply annoys the whole industry).
Finally, half of the 767 market is outside USA : All Nippon, ANA, Lan Chile, Qantas, Air China, Aeroflot, many african airlines leasings where the 767 is just absolute perfect for low intercontinental demand, operators being Neos, Blue Panorama, EuroAtlantic Airways, Lot Polish... the latest among many tried the 787-8, alike Vietnam Airlines or Uzbekistan Airways, but had regrets, yes, the cabin is much better, but financial efficiency were not attained due to not enough demand along the year, they had to change network and reposition units often, downgrade some destinations from regular service to seasonal 😑 (side note, the only actual game changer appears to be the A350-900, which apparently outmatches the 787 everywhere, you can actually make money without selling all the seats, but that's talks, I can't prove it, I'm just listening, and 787 operators says the -9 is decent, the -8 is garbage especially on domestic/regional routes.. 🤔😑 Should we believe the pros saying that?)
@@davemiller6055 And yes, absolutely agree, the 737 successor should be a single aisle 787. The 787 wing is nearly perfect. With such a new wing, longer landing gears, engine location should not pose any problem, and just dump that L1 door stairs, even in Africa there are equipments now to board/deplane passengers. That L1 stairs was the main reason why the short landing gears. For easy engine and undercarriage system access and maintenance, it's the same, the entire world is now stairs/lifters equipped. And yes, just copy what's good from Airbus, put ego aside, design similar cockpits and flight management systems between all types, it being narrow or widebody, so type certification will be less of a headache. Under the skin, what's still great and efficient from the 737 can just remain the same, but that nose from 707/720/727 should be dropped, current standard is pretty clear : 787, A350, A220, E-Jets, Superjet... they are all the same shape, so 787 nose, 4 huge windshield front and side it is.... ☺️👍
They need to focus on perfecting their current aircrafts first
Boeing has said MANY MANY times that they are not going to do a clean sheet MOM design. As early as December, 2023, Boeing publically stated that not only do they have no place to build an all new airliner, they do not intend to do so. With so many orders for the 737-MAX series there is little need for them to do a clean sheet design...at least for now. Once the 737MAX order book starts to get smaller is when they are more likely to look at a new MOM design. So, not only has Boeing said they aren't going to do it, they have said that over and over. Also, 2-3-2 is nothing new, the 767 was a 2-3-2 config and yes, it is narrower than the 787.
757 still my favorite
Make sure the doors stay closed.
Will the door plug be flying out as well? Asking for a 179 lives on one of Alaska Airlines' planes
If it’s Boeing, I ain’t going
(Except 737NG/777/744)
Boeing is currently the next generation of DC
now we’ll move on to 8x8 series after the 797
😎👌
Probably got other things to think about now
if i was them i would focus on quality....and staying in business
Sounds like a good idea to bring a plane likw that but it WILL cannibalize some of their own models that aren't too old yet.
I like your thoughts on this aircraft. It should be twin aisle with a 2 - 3 - 2 in coach. I'm not understanding why it should have folding wing tips.
Quite simply because that would allow it to fit into the 737/A320 gates that airports have plenty of. The 757 and 767 couldn't do so. That gives airlines flexibility, and flexibility boosts SALES.
So what happens next. The 8X8 series? Can't wait to see the B838 and B848.
Too quickly? :) I'd love a modular wing and body design so they could create a proper 757/737 replacement. If they refine the technology from the 787 I think it would be a treat.
However, according to Boeing, they don't even want to start with a clean sheet design before 2030. Sad :(
The clean design they are referring to is a 767 replacement. At the moment, Boeing is making all realistic attempts to save its narrow body market, the 737 that is, since the type is in deep shit due to cutting corners too much to fight Airbus (which got CSeries/A220 on top of). What Boeing still has in the bag is a plan for 767 replacement. But there is no rush for that, because Airbus has no ability to propose something similar, and the moment Airbus tries, one airline will undoubtedly tell Boeing, and Boeing will PROMPTLY respond with a 787 flavored 767 update. This is expected to happen around 2030 (but could begin very soon), when literally all 767 operators will panic, having no successor for the type : A330-800 is too big, 787-8 is too big, A321XLR/737Max10 are too small (and not a twin aisle), and any airline that has more than 10 Boeing 767 don't want to type rate its crew unless there is a DEAL behind, namely, getting it for free in exchange for a 787/767Max package (we can assume Boeing will adopt the same type transition A320 series-A330/A343 between 767Max, 777 and 787 by designing the same cockpit layout). Also, most 767 if not all are used on 2000-4000nm routes, the 787-8 can fly way beyond that, but actually, airlines don't care, range is not the important matter here, rather being a WIDEBODY-like plane that can fly domestic and medium range routes with less demand, or high demand, but two or three flights everyday... you also want a widebody because you don't want multiple 737/A320 with God knows how many crew and spare parts you have to manage and dispatch. That's why it matters "how many seats", you can't have a gap from 225 seats (737) to 360 (787) if you precisely need 290 for a bunch of routes in your network, anything above or below is money lost : too much crew and spare parts if the aircraft is too small, dead weight and burnt fuel if the aircraft is too large, in both case, the traveler pays more to compensate, and the airline is less competitive than those having the right aircraft..
@@StephenKarl_Integral i was only thinking that the 787 is starting from 240 passengers and the current 737 is 140 - 220 in cattle class config. So my imaginary plane would scale 160 - 240 in cattle so you could cover most of the narrow body segment therefore substituting the 757 and also replacing the 737 with a modern plane answering for example the 321XLR. I think the 787 covers the 767 completely so there is not much to do there.
@@StephenKarl_Integral 787 it's a 767 replacement
@@victormikecharlie1596 yes and no. All Nippon Airlines, Japan Airlines, Lot Polish Airlines, Ethiopian, Neos, Vietnam Airlines, Qantas, etc. agree that, to some extent, the 787-8 is a good replacement for the 767-300ER, but there are MANY issues with routes with less demand, particularly Asia, Africa and some smaller european destinations. The 787-8 is a tad too big in seating capacity, we're making profit exactly the same way with 767-300ER, not much better as advertised. The 787-9, definitely, is NOT a 767 successor, too large. In so many cases on high demand such as Japan domestic and regional, the goal is to serve a route three times a day, by introducing the 787-8, we ended up ditching the type and servicing routes twice a day with 777-200 til we ordered NEW 767-300ER to put them back there. For routes with less demand, service was gone from daily to 5 times a week, then back to a daily service on holidays...
So, yes, 787-8, and to some extent 787-9 are good for 767 replacement on routes like New York London. They are also great for routes initially operated with 777s, but due to lack of demand thanks to covid and Ukraine war, a SMALLER type is now advised. In a sense, the 787 is ASWELL a 777-200ER successor. But *on routes with low demand, the 767-300ER successor definitely does not exist.* USA and its high demand is not representative of the rest of the world, we can expect one to know only about US carriers to not understand, but, on a non-US airline business plan management, the 787 is rather the perfect A330 counterpart, the A330-200/800 being SLIGHTLY larger than the 767-300 just like 787-8, and the A330-300/900 and 787-9 being MUCH MUCH larger than 767-300ER, even tapping in the 777-200ER market. We, airlines, don't want dead weight (empty seats, empty cargo) that don't produce money.
=> the perfect 767 replacement does not exist, we only have the smallest of larger types as alternatives (787, A330Neo). We hope air travel costs goes cheaper so we can propose lower ticket prices and more people willing to fly 🙃
Side note : the era of flying first class for all middle class citizen is long gone, you only have first class and palace suite on high deman high average citizen revenue routes. In most cases, a middle weird class appeared, called "economy premium", then the business, but no first. The more you add cheaper smaller seats, the more you has to sell ticket, hopefully lower prices would attract more travelers, but, the more you demonstrate how big of a difference there is between a 767-300ER capacity and a 787-8 one. Even Africa finally understood, you could advertise pride by flying bigger, the mandatory single 747 classic in the fleet were proof of that tendency. Reality however teaches you well, so when major airlines around the world phased out their 747-400, they didn't repeat the same mistake.. The actual number of seats matters, a lot, because, you're not loosing money one day, you're actually loosing money everyday, along the years, along the decades...... The basics is, when you don't have the demand, you go smaller, because not only you will fill those seats, but you open more routes in your network for that new type, something less likely to happen with bigger types.
Imagine after this is going to be the B 808
Sure it will just appear out of the blue!
Maybe the 797 will be a wide body version of a modernized 757?
Mmmm let’s think what would this be made of? Any scrap parts we can sling together, get our mates in the FAA to certify it sling in loads of things that we don’t tell buyers or pilots, scrap quality control and most importantly tell everyone we care about safety. Good luck with that.
Aman dari kecer ga om?
Like a smaller Dreamliner?? Didn’t Boeing already make a small Dreamliner??! The -3 that no one wanted?? So how will this be different???
Boeing is due for a brand new 737 and 757 actually, they already have a 767 replacement which is soo much better and modern... But many said its too big.... and heavy, the Boeing 787.... So lets forget about 767 replacement and concentrate on the 737/ 757 replacement..... The 767 replacement is for when airbus decides to do a A322..... That's just my opinion 😊
In addition to a new and improved MCAS system!😁😅
Just make sure they check the doors😳😳
Boeing should make a new 757-600
Yup. The body should hold it. And forget the 747 twin jet. That’s when a worse thing to do than fix 737x
Boeing should make a 757 Max/X so Airlines have a new mid range aircraft!
Will it fall apart mid flight?
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
It is time to go for the gusto. Ductless fan engines, high wing.
The Boeing 797 should have 2 full decks like the A380, but the hump on top of the 2 stories like the 747!
Perhaps they might want to get their existing product range sorted out before embarking on any major new projects ... 😒🤨
Airbus should consider an A310 Neo, It’s has the capacity of a 757, but with longer range and it’s a widebody. Almost like the 797
The Boeing 807 should be an A380 body mixed with a MD11 or DC-10 tail engine, 30-wheel landing gears, normal A380 and turboprop engine. Tail lights, gear lights, engine lights? With an escalator going to 2nd floor. Like AirlinersLounge said, it will have foldable winglets, dimmable windows, composite material, advanced technology, modern engines
Good parts: If the gears don’t go down during landing, pilots can turn on a metal bottom of the fuselage.If the cockpit falls off, the plane will automatically fly to the destination instead of falling into the sea. If the plane has landing malfunctions, the pilots can turn on A BUTTER MODE. A FORKING BUTTER MODE. If the plane doesn’t get into the sky, it will automatically pull up. It’s pull up alarm is “Pull up now 🚨 pull up now 🚨 Ascend, begin climb, Ascend, Begin climb. Ascend. Begin climb.” And if they do not pull up, the plane will automatically pull up. Also if it falls into the sea, it can enable a *SHIP MODE?* And a lot of attacks on enemy planes. The wingtips are very strong. 13 building hits and one could fall off.
Bad news, the plane is mostly strong but can break if the nose impacts a power line. Buy it may be the best plane from every Boeing plane ever.
This is just a theory
How about focusing on making the 737 Max a semi-safe aircraft to fly in first?
797✈️
i wonder what part of the fuselage will pop off from this one.
Pipe dream at this moment. If they don't get their QC issues sorted out they're going to go under with regards to civil aviation.
Door plug fix and over quality improvement first--then we can enjoy new model anticipation from Boeing.
You basically described a modern 767! Where did the idea of a 757 come from
Wonder if it will be the same quality build as the current Boeing lineup that either falls out of the sky or has parts fall off because they aren't assembled completely.
Dodging type rating seems to ring a bell. To the max, realy! seven something or other . . . . .
"let's launch a new aircraft even if the last ones are not safe !"
will the doors fly off?
In the same way as the 757 and 767 shares the same type rating, even tho the 757 is a narrow body and the 767 is a widebody, a narrowbody 787, which could be the 797, could share the same type rating as the widebody 787. Even tho one is a widebody and one is a narrowbody. Just like the 757 and 767. Thats what im thinking.