Boeing Considers Developing a 757-PLUS Instead of New Mid-Market-Airplane Dubbed 797
Thread Starter
Boeing Considers Developing a 757-PLUS Instead of New Mid-Market-Airplane Dubbed 797
Another "Here we go again." By the time it happens, the certification basis will be 40 years old. Come own, FAA, amend
14 CFR 21.101 Changed Product Rule so this "new" airplane meets the current safety standards the 797 would have had to.
And while they are ait, amend the delegation processes, particularly with regard to ODA.
14 CFR 21.101 Changed Product Rule so this "new" airplane meets the current safety standards the 797 would have had to.
And while they are ait, amend the delegation processes, particularly with regard to ODA.
Already discussed here:
Boeing to cut 10% of workforce amid staggering $641 million loss in first quarter
BTW, can someone provide a link to said article(s)? I personally find the idea of re-introducing the 757 to be silly - is this really something coming out of Boeing, or is it fanciful speculation by an ignorant media?
Boeing to cut 10% of workforce amid staggering $641 million loss in first quarter
BTW, can someone provide a link to said article(s)? I personally find the idea of re-introducing the 757 to be silly - is this really something coming out of Boeing, or is it fanciful speculation by an ignorant media?
Boeing Considers Developing a 757-PLUS Instead of New Mid-Market-Airplane Dubbed 797
That headline could have been written (and has been) at any time in the last 10 years, with as much likelihood of it happening.
Persistent fanboy rumor on another aviation forum. The 757 production line is dead, the tooling has been scrapped, and it's going to stay that way. Amazing airplane for its day, but that day is passing.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this is where this reumor got starts,,,,again.
https://www.reuters.com/article/airc...-idUSL5N2CF5PN
https://www.reuters.com/article/airc...-idUSL5N2CF5PN
I think this is where this reumor got starts,,,,again.
https://www.reuters.com/article/airc...-idUSL5N2CF5PN
https://www.reuters.com/article/airc...-idUSL5N2CF5PN
Since then, Boeing has been looking at distilling the two-aircraft NMA programme into one new 757-style plane, while studying a more modest 767 upgrade, sources said.
A 757 replacement would counter strong sales of the Airbus A321 and allow Boeing to pioneer systems needed in future replacements of all small and medium jets - notably cockpits.
Interesting to see that (at least per the linked article) Boeing is again looking at my preferred option for the mid-market - a '767X' with a new wing, engine, and avionics...
That's actually decently insightful article. Funny how some people read:
and
somehow think that means Boeing is going to reintroduce the 757...
Interesting to see that (at least per the linked article) Boeing is again looking at my preferred option for the mid-market - a '767X' with a new wing, engine, and avionics...
and
somehow think that means Boeing is going to reintroduce the 757...
Interesting to see that (at least per the linked article) Boeing is again looking at my preferred option for the mid-market - a '767X' with a new wing, engine, and avionics...
I really hope that whatever Boeing eventually replaces the 737 with has a new, wider fuselage. The 707/727/737/757 cross section is simply obsolete for the current generation of larger, wider passengers.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
757 was and is still a good aircraft, however 737 Max was (hopefully) the ultimate upgrade to an aircraft in continuous production since the 60's. Resurrecting an aircraft that first flew only 15 years later than the first 737 isn't going to happen.
Boeing have to develop world class solutions to make the 737 Max work and restore confidence in the brand.
Boeing have to develop world class solutions to make the 737 Max work and restore confidence in the brand.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is the Reuters article, and another websites referal to it, I looked at wen when this was discussed on the "Boeing to cut 10%" thread.
"Any replacement would have slightly more range and seats, with one source nicknaming it “757-Plus” " was seen to be a reference to that 757-Plus was an internal workname used in Boeing.
There is more to this than can just be brushed off due to missing tooling. It can't all have been lost. The plane is still flying and one can still get spares. You can be sure the plans haven't gone missing.
The 767 is a widebody and can never be a quick and oversized fit straight into the airport parking spaces own stairs no belly containers 737 ExMax replacement. The 757 with a bit of more modern, economically optimized manufacturing, lighter composits and modern methoods of glueing and the latest most fuel efficient engines can. And the engines will fit actually under the wings. Also rumoured it can take off sanz tail scraping even without landing gear trickery.
Boeing don't need a mid market replacement. It has the 787. What it needs is a bread and butter plane it can sell and make in big volumes, within 3 to 4 years. Hopefully start preselling in 2 when the market comes back. Then having a tried and tested starter to modify speeds up the process.
"Any replacement would have slightly more range and seats, with one source nicknaming it “757-Plus” " was seen to be a reference to that 757-Plus was an internal workname used in Boeing.
There is more to this than can just be brushed off due to missing tooling. It can't all have been lost. The plane is still flying and one can still get spares. You can be sure the plans haven't gone missing.
The 767 is a widebody and can never be a quick and oversized fit straight into the airport parking spaces own stairs no belly containers 737 ExMax replacement. The 757 with a bit of more modern, economically optimized manufacturing, lighter composits and modern methoods of glueing and the latest most fuel efficient engines can. And the engines will fit actually under the wings. Also rumoured it can take off sanz tail scraping even without landing gear trickery.
Boeing don't need a mid market replacement. It has the 787. What it needs is a bread and butter plane it can sell and make in big volumes, within 3 to 4 years. Hopefully start preselling in 2 when the market comes back. Then having a tried and tested starter to modify speeds up the process.
Paxing All Over The World
They can develop a brand new mid-size machine and CALL it the 757. It does not have to be BASED on the 75 other than approximate size and range. The 757+ could be a clean sheet design. They might just want to reuse the number to keep '9' for the future.
This is all based on the success of the evolutions of the A321. As TDRacer says, can Boeing really compete by evolving a very old design (757) ? There is generally a huge love of the 757 because it is an aesthetically pleasing design (especially with winglets), the love pilots have for it due performance, and the unintended niche in TATL flying it found in later life. How big is this market? Can it sustain 2 competing airframes when we consider crew currency? IE the crew can fly a Boeing equivalent of the A320 on a 2 hour sector today, then an 8 hour sector with an A321XLR equivalent overnight tomorrow on the same rating? Is it actually worth Boeing's expense to divide this market with Airbus? In a similar fashion to the B748 vs A388 argument....have both manufacturers lost...or have Boeing lost "less" because the B748 has the freighter variant.
I think we're mixing possibilities here. The 757 achieved what it did because of powerful engines, big wings and double bogey gear to get good runway performance and range at the expense of fuel burn due those thrusty engines at the expense of weight. In the modern world, are you better with two different types to achieve same mission or one type compromised in one to accommodate the other? No doubt a new bespoke design in the niche would knock Airbus' socks off, is the market in that niche big enough to justify the expense?.....
I think we're mixing possibilities here. The 757 achieved what it did because of powerful engines, big wings and double bogey gear to get good runway performance and range at the expense of fuel burn due those thrusty engines at the expense of weight. In the modern world, are you better with two different types to achieve same mission or one type compromised in one to accommodate the other? No doubt a new bespoke design in the niche would knock Airbus' socks off, is the market in that niche big enough to justify the expense?.....
That is the Reuters article, and another websites referal to it, I looked at wen when this was discussed on the "Boeing to cut 10%" thread.
"Any replacement would have slightly more range and seats, with one source nicknaming it “757-Plus” " was seen to be a reference to that 757-Plus was an internal workname used in Boeing.
"Any replacement would have slightly more range and seats, with one source nicknaming it “757-Plus” " was seen to be a reference to that 757-Plus was an internal workname used in Boeing.
There is more to this than can just be brushed off due to missing tooling. It can't all have been lost. The plane is still flying and one can still get spares. You can be sure the plans haven't gone missing.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem is McDonald Douglas execs shmoozed their way into the top jobs at Boeing..displacing all the engineer types that previously ran Boeing..set fire to the culture of the company and pushed all Boeing’s culture out the door. Now there’s not enough people in Boeing willing to call a spade a spade..and point out obvious flaws in designs..and the culture now punishes people for doing that anyway..so the question is; can Boeing even design a successful clean sheet passenger aircraft anymore..the answer I suspect is no..so that might lead credence to resurrection of old types rumors
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tdracer - I fully agree that it would need a brand new multimodel cocpit updated to modern standards and prepared for the future of more automation. The body sould also be a composite play like the 787.
However, using the 757 as a template would not only create a good looking plane, as some comments have agreed with, but probably shave a couple of years, and associated costs, of the development cycle by reusing some of the principals like aerodynamic shape and and landing gear. Something Boeing desperately needs at the moment.
Personally I don't agree with this trend for ever larger 737's for the bread and butter jobs of short haul flying. The 150 seat aircraft was a more versatile one that encouragede more direct routes and higher frequencies. However the larger planes have been encouraged by slot restrictions, airport fees and increasing pilot costs.
However, using the 757 as a template would not only create a good looking plane, as some comments have agreed with, but probably shave a couple of years, and associated costs, of the development cycle by reusing some of the principals like aerodynamic shape and and landing gear. Something Boeing desperately needs at the moment.
Personally I don't agree with this trend for ever larger 737's for the bread and butter jobs of short haul flying. The 150 seat aircraft was a more versatile one that encouragede more direct routes and higher frequencies. However the larger planes have been encouraged by slot restrictions, airport fees and increasing pilot costs.
