It's official...Boeing to end B757 line

[Shore Guy]

Boeing to Complete Production of 757
Thursday October 16, 5:00 pm ET
- Completing Successful Program After Delivering More Than 1,000 Airplanes Over 20 Years; Breakthrough Efficiency Supported Growth in Air Travel -


CHICAGO, Oct. 16 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA - News) announced today that it has decided to complete production of the 757 jetliner in late 2004.

"This decision reflects the market reality for the 757 as well as the growth in range and seating capacity of our market-leading Next-Generation 737 family," said Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally. "Over the long term, the increased capabilities of our newest 737s and the exciting potential of the 7E7 will fulfill the market served by the 757."

Consistent with prior disclosed estimates, Boeing will recognize a pre-tax charge in the third quarter of $184 million, or 14 cents per share, principally related to termination and shutdown costs at Boeing Commercial Airplanes. Most of the cash expenditures related to the charge will occur through 2005.

Over the past two decades, more than 1,000 757s have been delivered to 55 customers around the world. The worldwide fleet of 757s will continue to benefit from superior fleet support provided by Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

"Thousands of people around the world are to be thanked for making the 757 a success story in aviation over the past 20 years. It will continue to provide great value to the world's passenger airlines and cargo operators in service for many years to come," Mulally said.

[RRAAMJET]

A more reliable, logical and fun airliner to fly I do not know; it set a new standard from the 80's forward. I honestly can't think of a 757 hull loss stemming from a design flaw or tech problem (leaving pitot covers on notwithstanding).

Having flown the 727, 747-400, 757, 767, and 777, the 757 is my favourite in flying qualities and performance. (I know it gives a tail-wagging ride in the far back - sorry, cabin crew).

" If it looks right, it'll fly right..." How true. :ok:

[non sched]

One of the prettiest planes ever built. Sorry to see it go although I know it will be around for years in various capacities.:(

[PAXboy]

When I discover that I am to be riding in a 757, it always makes me smile. The machine is graceful and leaps from the ground with alacrity. A beautiful, beautiful machine.

[flite idol]

Wow, alacrity. I had to look that one up but when I did I had to agree!

[Ignition Override]

Do any recent, "foreign-built" aircraft (outside the US) have such a logical FMC/MCP and/or autothrottles etc?



:suspect:

[Bus429]

Good ship, the 757. Those in service should be around for a while, even those with - C37 engines...

[expedite_climb]

:sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:

[Major Cong]

Tell me it's not true....sob:{ :{ :{ :{ :{

[Soulman]

Since they're like brother and sister - will this mean the end of the 767 in the near future aswell? :uhoh:

Sadly, we don't get the chance to see many 757's here down-under, but from what I have heard and seen on the net - she looks classy and powerful to say the least. ;)

Soulman.

[BOEINGBOY1]

We had 2 of the first ever 75 airframes of the production line, 7th and 10th I beleive - They are still going strong, 20 years on and with us throughout. Performance and reliability far exceeds that of our 320/321's, many of which are a quarter of the age. A true pilots airplane, powerful and forgiving. Popular with the cabin crew and pax also. As somebody else said, of the (I think 5) hull losses of the 75, none have been attributed to a fault with the airplane.
:ok:

[codpiece face]

It will be a great loss on the technical side also, the 757 is just about as good as it gets. I am also still working on many of the first batch of 20 from the line and they have stood the test of time brilliantly. We should expect to see them for many more years to come yet, although I have heard whispers from a couple of places that the british charter airlines may start to slowly phase them out.

I know before anybody comments that there are a rash of new start ups using the 757, but that is mainly because of lease rates and they are starting to be offloaded by the more established carriers as cross crew ratings and spares and maintenance become more and more important to the people that count beans.

I think another thing that has been against the aircraft is the fact SLF do not like going across the pond in it and require twin aisle aircraft.

[White Shadow]

I was a pax on a A2000 B757 Verona-Gatwick recently.
Lovely aeroplane, leapt off the ground, etc.
And excellent cabin service - but I felt sorry for the CC at the back, when reaching cruise level was delayed due to conflicting traffic at the Swiss/German Piccadilly Circus, so lots of turbulance from the lea of the Alps, and the tail certainly did wag!
Was it my imagination (I was at the back, too) or could I actually feel the rudder & elevators kick in, real smartish?

Happy landings
WS

[moggie]

market-leading Next-Generation 737 family

well, there's a laugh! Neither market leading in technology or sales!

[Psr777]

:O :O

Sorry to go against the grain, but for me the 757 is not the nicest of planes to fly on as crew.

The area around Doors 2 is always freezing, no matter how high the temperature is turned up.

The amount of condensation that pours from the ceiling panels and drips on passengers on take off and landing.

Not too mention the smell from the toilets on the older models that don't have the suction system.

Having flown on a number of different airlines 757's both as pax and crew, these problems were present at all times.

I will not miss it.

That being said, it was a very versatile and useful aircraft, used on short, medium and long haul routes.

:ugh:

[I P freely]

Does anyone know how many 757 PF´s where made???

[Shore Guy]

BOEING 757 TIMELINE

February 1968: Boeing announces that it has been working on designs for the 757.

August 1978: British Airways orders 19 of the jets and Eastern Airlines orders 21 with options for 24 more. They are Boeing's first orders for the plane.

March 1979: Boeing formally goes ahead with full production of the 757.

January 1982: The company unveils the 757 in Renton. About 12,000 people turn out for the event.

February 1982: The 757 takes its first flight.

January 1983: The first plane enters service.

January-December 1989: Boeing receives 166 orders for the jet, the most orders for 757 in any year.

September 1996: The company launches the Boeing 757-300.

October 2003: Boeing announces it will end production of the 757.



More at: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/144329_boeing17.html

[Anti-ice]

The most beautiful airliner nose....:(

That wonderful growl at doors 2...:(

The sheer power....:(

One of the best airliners ever built,solid and trustworthy- she is going to be sadly missed in time to come, one of my faves to work on and definitely my fave to look at.

Over 20 years of outstanding service - what a shame :ugh:

cute - but very powerful (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/431131/M/)

[PAXboy]

BoeingBoy1: Performance and reliability far exceeds that of our 320/321's, many of which are a quarter of the age. A true pilots airplane, powerful and forgiving. Ahh, there is it all. It is older than 320/321 and built 'in the old style' of design and construction standards.

In this regard, Boeing are no different to ANY other manufacturer of ANY other product.
1) They design from the ground up, taking into consideration those who are going to drive the machine and the highest standards of construction practice.

2) Someone else does it differently and saves money.

3) Original company have to change or die.

OK, before we hear from the Tolouse supporters, I pax on Airbus all the time and am not concerned. If Boeing are 'dumbing down' their design and construction, in response to competition - then Airbus will tighten the circle. If Embraer are building in something like the old fashioned way, then they will start to rise. If you look at the thread in this forum about the way the 7E7 will be constructed around the world and the bits flowin in to be stuck together - this is all the same story.

[MasterBates]

The 757 is truly one of the gretest jets one can fly. Powered like a fighter (RR 537) and one can almost always accept any altitude at any weight!
However, the design is getting old, and I remember some odd things about her. Sunscreens designed by a blind lunatic, just one autothrottle servo (the constant need for synchronizing the throttles), vertical speed on MCP without revertion to FLCH (like the 737), jumping numbers on the MCP, and the craftsmanship of the cockpit is pretty sad. The FMC is also getting very oldfashioned (even the Pegasus).
But nevertheless she is able to give us joyrides:O
MB.

[Huck]

There were hot rumors about in Memphis that FDX was going to buy the last 16, thus keeping the line open awhile. They did this on the 727. Alas, it is not to be.... Plenty of slightly used ones on the market, though.

[four_two]

Having been involved in 757 maintenance for almost 20 years, I'm not going to let the rosy tint of nostalgia make me forget the many hours of fighting with a PRSOV change in the cold and wet.
I will however be disappointed to see the demise of the 757. :(

[coopervane]

Nice looking aeroplane but used to worry me watching at the start of the take off role as power is applied...........the whole tailplane shakes in the engine vortex as if it was going to shake itself to bits! Must have good glue at Boeing as not seen one come off yet!
Never seen that on a 727....but they were milled out of a solid block.
A fine ship none the less and even though I am a dedicated 727 man, it will be sad to see production end. Does that mean the -300 as well?

Coop & 727 bear

[bagpuss lives]

Goodbye then to the aircraft that can almost always be relied upon to climb excellently, turn nicely, fly through whatever weather, and accept pretty much whatever level it's given.

I suspect though that current operators of the a/c will be using them for many many years to come. Or at least I hope so.

[Hand Solo]

I honestly can't think of a 757 hull loss stemming from a design flaw or tech problem (leaving pitot covers on notwithstanding).

As somebody else said, of the (I think 5) hull losses of the 75, none have been attributed to a fault with the airplane.


Would the Cali accident have been prevented if the speedbrakes auto-retracted on application of TOGA power like they do on the Airbus?

1) They design from the ground up, taking into consideration those who are going to drive the machine and the highest standards of construction practice.

Highest standards of construction practice? Boeing were the Henry Ford of aircraft construction: build'em cheap and stack'em high! If you want the highest standard of construction find yourself a Douglas built aircraft! Boeing build them solid (as some exciting manouvers on a BA 744 demonstrated), but they're more 'Ford' than 'Mercedes'.

[Lu Zuckerman]

If you If you want the highest standard of construction find yourself a Douglas built aircraft!

Something about Douglas that you may not know about:

When Douglas was bidding on the C5A against Lockheed each of the two companies had to build a mockup to demonstrate the ability to carry various weapons systems. Lockheed built a full-scale mockup and they built full-scale weapons systems. This mockup was built mainly of wood and was only representational of the real aircraft.

Douglas on the other hand built a hard mockup that was exactly like the full-scale aircraft. However it was built to a smaller scale as were the various weapons systems and vehicles and it was so accurate that detail drawings of the fuselage profiles as well as the wings could be taken and transcribed onto paper. Their reasoning was that if they got the C5A contract they could build an aircraft that would directly compete with the 747.

In the Douglas design they proposed to use former rings for the structure that were made in Titanium subassemblies that were Huck Bolted © together. Lockheed proposed that the former rings be made of one piece of Titanium. When the C5A went into service the former rings would stress relieve in place and warp requiring major rework.

In the AWACS competition Douglas proposed the DC-8 with a fuselage mounted Radome. Their bid was unsuccessful but the Air Force who owned the drawings replaced the 707 Radome, which was tail, mounted, and used the Douglas design instead.


:E

[Huck]

Huck Bolted © together


?????

[PPRuNe Towers]

Huck, at least Lu was gracious enough to show that your name is copyrighted....:}

[pigboat]

Huck, looks like you wuz scrod.;)

[Lu Zuckerman]

How many guys would respond if I said Jo (Joe) bolts ©?

:E :E

[Joe Curry]

>>The area around Doors 2 is always freezing, no matter how high the temperature is turned up. <<

I thought it was down to the sobering-up process!:D

[Lu Zuckerman]

In almost all cases the final seal on aircraft doors was the buildup of cigarette tars contained in the smoke. With the advent of the no smoking ban the tars were no longer present and when the aircraft went into check the door seal areas were cleaned and as a result many doors leaked. This might be the reason.

:E

[AJ]

Doing what she does best (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/443047/M/) :ok:

[BOEINGBOY1]

Hans Solo.
Would the Cali accident have been prevented if the speedbrakes auto-retracted on application of TOGA power like they do on the Airbus?

Doupt it - by the time that TOGA thrust was applied, they were pretty much screwed!

RIP

[Hand Solo]

I'm not so sure BB. I think the final NTSB report said they'd had TOGA on for some time and had been flying against the stick shaker, mainly because they still had the speedbrakes deployed. There was discussion about whether they would have made it if the speedbrakes had been retracted, especially as they hit very close to the top of the mountain. Anyone remember the full details of the incident?

[Ignition Override]

Our pilots never have anything negative to say about the plane, but our flight attendants do not like the stronger turbulence at the aft galley, being so far behind the wing, and it must be the same with the stretched DC-8s.

How does anyone compare turbulence in the back of a 757 compared to the A-321 which has fly-by-wire?

[PAXboy]

Difficult to say, right off the top but I would say that I have noticed more 'shimmy' down the back of 321s.

I spent 18 months working in MUC and shuttled on (mostly) LH's Airbus'. I was often down the back - right at the back. I cannot recall a single unpleasant sector in a '5' but then, I am biased. (See my earlier post)

[Flight Safety]

One assumes that the 767 will not be too far behind.

What effect will the completion of the 757 have on the 2 engines certified to fly on it? I believe that only the 757 uses the RB211-535 (and its variants), while the C-17 also uses the PW2000. How will the lower production numbers for the PW2000 effect the C-17 program?

[Sick Squid]

One of my favourites for sure, and I've got the same score as Raamjet on types flown plus a couple more.... particularly liked the RB211-535E4 version, a real rocket ship. Excellent mix of stability and responsiveness, and a delight to hand-fly; one of my great memories is flying the Canarsie into JFK at night in a 757, something I did more than a few times at a former base. Agree with the comments on the turbulence down the back, however, but hey! we's up the front! ;) Was always worth a call down the back to see just how it was at the other end of that long moment-arm, mind you. Could be very unforgiving if you didn't deal with the drift on a crosswind landing.. shakes its tail like a wet dog then! Or maybe that was just me being crap....

Don't think they'll be vanishing from our skies overnight... will definitely be a real sturdy workhorse for years to come. Its hard to think of an airliner that looks "more" right than the 757..."as" right perhaps, but not more....

[RRAAMJET]

Flt Safety: I believe the L-1011 -250/-500 series have 535's...but not many operators left (thank god - another of my types I've flown, and it was grossly overcomplicated but also an excellent safety record. Never flew the later ones though.)

Have to disagree with the MD/Boeing quality analogy from an earlier posting. I think the MD-80 is the cheapest, tackiest, most add-on bits-as-afterthoughts-with-interior-trim-falling-off jet I've flown. All kinds of wierd handling revisions and technical wobblies throughout it's history; just not in the same class as the 757.

SS: agree with the crosswind landing thoughts...but a sweet one is really sweet!!

[West Coast]

RRAAMJET hit it on the head about smaller MD's. A bitch of a time trying to find the whiskey compass the first time.

[Taking Over, Nigel]

Very sad to see the 757 winding down, though not as sad I guess as the final demise of Concorde- a truly magnificent machine. At least the 757 will be around for many years yet.
In my 19,000+ hours I've flown Boeings, Scarebuses and Douglas, with three airlines.
The Boeing is the Mercedes or BMW or Rolls Royce of aircraft, the McDouglas is the Ford, and the Bus is the .... cheap and light. I've seen the worst and most threatening problems on Airbus- way way more than the other two. (Our engineering people tell me they're actually very expensive on parts, just as they have told me about design compromises that Boeing simply would not make...)
Boeing wins hands down on quality, and by a substantial margain. :ok:
(No I'm not American- not even a little bit.)

[PlaneTruth]

As a friend of mine once commented as we taxied into the hammerhead where a shiny new 757 was awaiting clearance for takeoff:

"She's like a skinny girl with big tits...what's not to like?"

As for the Cali incident, answer me this: Where is the airmanship in asking for a shortcut direct when the route of flight leads you down one of the deepest valleys in the world surrounded by some of the highest terrain?

PT