Game over! Boeing KILLED 757. Here's Why...

Game over! Boeing KILLED 757. Here's Why...
===
00:00 Intro
00:45 757’s background
02:35 First reason
04:49 Second reason
06:52 Third reason
08:35 Last reason
===
Game over! Boeing KILLED 757. Here's Why...
The Boeing 7 5 7 used to be a pride of the aircraft manufacturer since it instantly gained so much interest from both passengers and pilots as soon as it was introduced. However, the production of this aircraft lasted only 23 years, much shorter than the predecessor 7 3 7 family. In fact, the 7 3 7 family is now still in development and production. Despite the newer design and the success story of the 7 5 7, Boeing decided to cease the project instead of updating it.
Game over! Boeing KILLED 757. Here's Why...So Why Boeing dumped the 7 5 7? Let's find out in today's episode!
But before we start, if you haven't subscribed to our channel yet, please like, comment, and subscribe so you'll be the first to see our next videos. Now, let’s dive in!
Game over! Boeing KILLED 757. Here's Why...The Boeing 7 5 7 is a mid-size, narrow-body twin-engine jet airliner that was designed and introduced as a replacement for the trijet 7 2 7 on short and medium routes. The manufacturer initially intended to build the 7 5 7 to become a stretched version of the 7 2 7 with the same engine configuration, which consisted of 3 engines. However, due to the oil crisis after the Yom Kippur War and the fact that Airbus had already performed how efficient an airliner with only 2 engines could be through the wide-body A300 introduced a few years earlier, the original idea of a stretched variant of the 7 2 7 was soon canceled and Boeing decided to launch the 7 5 7 with the 7N7 prototype. It was developed concurrently with the Boeing 7 6 7, a wide-body twinjet, and the two share design features and flight decks which allowed pilots to obtain a common type rating to operate both aircraft. During its production from 19 81 to 2004, it became well-known for its versatility, operating both short and long-haul routes.

[@bryansexton8276]

Factual error! The 737 was not the predecessor of the 757. The 757 originally started out as a higher capacity 727. As a 727 replacement, it was designed for higher performance for short runways, and high and hot airports. But the 1980's more airports had built longer runways for jets and didn't need the high performance planes to visit smaller airports. Fuel economy was more desired.

[@bryansexton8276]

There was little demand for 757's by the time the line closed. There was no new engine available in the thrust class needed for an updated 757. There still isn't. The 757 is much heavier than the largest 737 models and variants of the A321 NEO making it less competitive even if Boeing had built an updated 757. The 757 is more like a wide body in terms of maintenance costs. The remaining passenger fleets of 757's are used very differently than they were when first introduced. Continental replaced its domestic 757's Rolls Royce powered 757's with 737-900's and redeployed all the 757's to transatlantic routes. When they merged with United, United retired many of their Pratt and Whitney engined 757's and redeployed the rest to transcontinental service equipped with Continental's angled lie flat business class seats used on the transatlantic operations. A 757 replacement aircraft will have to be a plane to fit between the 737-10 and 787-8. It won't be used for short haul flying. It will be more of a 757 and 767 replacement. In the US, I don't see it being used for flights shorter the mid-continent to either coast and repositioning flights. The 737 and A320 series will dominate the narrow body fleets. By the time 737 production ends, way more 737-10's will have been built than all the 757's ever built.
By the time the 757

[@tjfSIM]

I honestly think Boeing made a huge tactical error in ditching the 757. It's a much more suitable airframe to carry the larger LEAP engines. They should have dropped the ageing 737 instead.

[@craigwiester9177]

1:52: What's that??!? It's NEITHER a 757 NOR a 767.

[@thegrinch8161]

It’s bloody obvious,Boeing needs the money prop up the disastrous 737