Back to Squawk list
  • 53

Boeing Considers Developing a 757-PLUS Instead of New Mid-Market-Airplane Dubbed 797

Aggiunto
 
Montreal, Canada - Airlines and aircraft manufacturers are delaying or shelving their projects as they just concentrate on surviving during the ongoing global crisis. Boeing has recently announced that it gave up the joint venture deal with the Brazilian airframer Embraer. The American Aerospace giant also shelved its New Mid-Market-Airplane (NMA) project in January this year, which was stalled in the wake of the 737 MAX grounding that came into force in March 2019 after two fatal crashes. (www.airlinerwatch.com) Altro...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


nasdisco
Chris B 39
Somewhere in Washington State there are a bunch of engineers saying I told you to do that years ago......
djames225
djames225 12
Meanwhile some pencil pusher in Chicago is going "My Idea, My Idea"
hardworker7
hardworker7 0
Weren't the airlines asking for this option about 15 years ago?
gshenkle
Gordon Shenkle 15
About F*#&ing time!!! The whole industry has been asking for new 757s,they aren't really happy with the new 737s which really look like short 757s anyway. The Max probably shouldn't ever fly again under that name, it's been too tarnished by issues that seem never ending.

Boeing management has been screwed up since they moved to Chicago!!! Two monkeys and a donkey could do a better job. It's time to clean house, move management back to Seattle where it belongs, near the folks who build them and return to suspenders and belt engineering which made the company great!
djames225
djames225 10
I think you just insulted monkeys and donkeys.
SkyAware123
SkyAware123 -6
if they look like 757's and they're not happy with it, what makes you think they will be happy with an actual 757 ? Doubt it. nope.
Sabretooth78
Christopher Sargeant 13
I think he's implying that Boeing has been trying to make a 757 out of the 737 and is failing rather miserably.
MrWidgeon
Bill Bailey 5
Just throwing this out there for Ss&Gs, a 757-300 with the 787 wing planform and new engines. Whatever it is is going to have to compete with the A321NEO, so it's going to be single aisle. (I know, I'm full of it, just having fun.)
aghume
Alan Hume 3
The 757's substantial undercarriage alone puts it way out ahead of continually revamping the 737 which was only designed for JT8D engines after all!
tnormanbates
Thomas Bates 5
If they don’t widen the fuselage it will fail. A big part of the A320 success stems from the fact that the regular flyers know its more comfortable. A few inches matter. I’ve heard it almost everyday from customers getting off my A320 flights for over 20 years. They should go a few inches wider than a A320/321 just to stay ahead.

That forces you into a new type but now you can take advantage of new wing technology and gain a real advantage over the A321NEO.

The 757 was a great airplane, but tecnology has made it obsolete. And the 737 failures have shown us what happens when you try to take an old design to far with tweaks and gimmicks!
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 9
Why not the 757-MAX? Thank you, that will be $30,000.
2018paulrobbinx
Paul Robbins 4
Pretty sure the "MAX" brand name isn't going to be redeemed any time soon. I feel like their marketing will choose anything but that.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 10
757-MIN?
wwharris
Bill Harris 1
Maybe 757-GeoMean
E1craZ4life
Edward Bardes 2
I was thinking the 757NG.
SkyAware123
SkyAware123 1
lol. the max name will amount to 0 sales.
CPsarras
Christos Psarras 1
If they were to use some moniker like this, I have a feeling it will be something like 797X or something, not Max; to much negative connotation, I doubt we will see that used again.
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 1
pilot62
Scott Campbell 2
37's do not look like 57's .. The higher gear and notable difference in the fuselage to accommodate the larger engine, is exactly why they have the problem they do with the MAX 8, 9 and 10 if we ever see one
stratofan
stratofan 2
Just do not call it 757MAX! I always said that there is something to the 757, if several airlines are clamoring to reopen the line again. While I agree with most, that it is not really suited to the long haul flights, it is great for flights under three hours. Would be great to see it in production again. Also, a freighter version too.
MarcPagan212
Marc Pagan 6
As a coach passenger, the 757 wins the "Most Awful Aircraft for Long Haul" contest.

Few things are worse for pax and stewardesses than people caught behind the drink cart, when they need the lav :)
raleedy
ALLAN LEEDY 2
Last time I flew on a wide body, both aisles had carts.
MarcPagan212
Marc Pagan -2
Amazingly inane comment Mr. Leedy.

Two aisle aircraft do indeed have carts in the isle,
and move much faster/complete their service quicker due to?

Two aisles.
lvenable
lvenable 1
Why?, because they are serving MORE passengers?
djames225
djames225 1
You cannot compare all narrow bodies to wide bodies..if a wide body is in a 3-4-3 configuration, they are NOT going to serve any faster, than a 3-2 narrow body. Actually probably slower as most wide bodies are longer.
tbpera
Tom Pera 2
767 is 2-3-2
djames225
djames225 2
Yes but notice I said "if" such as the triple 7..A hugh number of airlines are now retiring their 767's, if they had not done so already.
rfinsl1
mike Hamilton 1
Far from the worst.. 18hrs 2 fuel stops on a packed mad dog
djames225
djames225 1
I never found any difference in these and the 739ER. 1 lav at front of economy and 2 at rear..and yes I am comparing apples to apples on the in seat time of 6-7 hrs.
SkyAware123
SkyAware123 1
no kidding. I flew the damn thing across the atlantic and hated it. Also hated the fuel capacity which gave us a free stopover in scenic gander, missing my connection. no thanks
jptq63
jptq63 3
While a 757 derived aircraft fits the single aisle market, given it has not been made since 2004 (~ 16 years) are the tooling and such still available? I.e. the 767 is still active on the assembly line, and I would find it hard to not think much of the tooling costs to make a “new” 767-X far more economically viable to Boeing (and the airlines who might pay for it) given all the other potential costs involved…. Call it the Spirit 76X with new wings, engines, and any other weight reductions and just figure out proper length (i.e. short and long versions to cover 737 Max puck-up and not overlap the 787) that makes sense; might even be able to cover Pacific and Atlantic crossings with both versions for more point-to-point routes.
w7psk
Ricky Scott 1
Tooling is not available. It was destroyed.
ADXbear
ADXbear 3
Yea.. finally listening to us.. been saying this for years..

Great plane in every sense, just upgrade engines and avionocs..
wopri
Wolfgang Prigge 2
Just make sure the cabin is 8 inches wider, to be a minimal 2 inches better than the competition.
aurodoc
aurodoc 2
Maybe it's time to change the seating configuration of the 757. If folks are finally tired of being crammed into an airplane then make it 2-2 or 2-3 instead of 3-3, add some extra legroom and charge more. This would make it more flyer friendly and maybe a successful modification. Cheap airfares and crowded planes with unruly passengers might be a thing of the past.
djames225
djames225 2
Except that is already being done. If Boeing went this approach, Airbus would already be ahead of that curve. A220-500 with perhaps GE or RR power plants unless P&W gets its head in the game.
aurodoc
aurodoc 1
Correct. I flew Swiss from Vienna to Zurich on A-220 with 3-2 set up It was pretty comfortable but only for a short flight. With a wider fuselage on 757, making it 2-3 adds 3 inches to each seat width and can come up with a "premium economy" set up that I have flown on both United and Lufthansa from SFO to FRA. Very comfortable.
Take out 1/3 the seats and charge 1/3 more and I would fly this single aisle setup for 10 hours. Re engineered fuel efficient engines and you might have a winner without a lot of cost.
djames225
djames225 2
Yes if you removed 1 seat on the 757, be a bit wider. I think that's why I like flying in the A220..its fuselage is only a 12" smaller in diameter than the 57.
empyreal
Raymond Doherty 2
The 757 was/is a beautiful plane, but I will never fly a single-aisle aircraft on a long-haul flight.
ssobol
Stefan Sobol 3
Good luck with that. 737-900ER can fly 4700nmi these days. Airbus 320NEO class can fly 4600nmi. 737s regularly fly coast to coast in the US. Some even fly transatlantic.

The "new" 757 is Boeing's answer to the A321XLR.
myalias
myalias 2
Even the lowly A220-100 can do 3400 nmi, which matches the 757-300.
raleedy
ALLAN LEEDY 4
What do you need to do in the other aisle?
empyreal
Raymond Doherty 0
Also, it is far less likely you will be trapped by a food cart going to the restroom. Food service flows much better in a two-aisle plane.
empyreal
Raymond Doherty -1
To wander around and stretch my legs, what else?
empyreal
Raymond Doherty -1
Boarding is also easier and faster on a two-aisle aircraft.
AlanBDahl
Alan Dahl 1
Depends what you mean by “long haul”, I’ve flown Icelandair’s 757 SEA-KEF-Europe several times and it’s a perfectly acceptable aircraft for that route but SEA-KEF is only 7 1/2 hours which is about as long as I’d prefer to fly on a narrow body.
tbpera
Tom Pera 2
hated the 757... be better to do a 767 with new wing etc... 2 aisles 2-3-2 configuration.. plenty of gas to go
across the pond
pilot62
Scott Campbell 1
Some hub to hub and Hawaian flights are served well with the 57-300, there's a reason Airforce Two is a 57, and that they've survived this long, when United had domestic 57's still flying they were the best in the fleet.
ImperialEagle
ImperialEagle 1
My guess is the 737 Max is going to be re-branded the 797.
They will kick the NMA project down the road and turn their attention to the 777X.
djames225
djames225 1
They could not simply re-brand it a different model. Certifications are for a 737, so FAA may, more likely than not, shake their head no and want a complete re-cert. done. That plus pilots would need type rating for it unless FAA agrees to a "waiver". But then you have other countries who may not.
ImperialEagle
ImperialEagle 1
I get what you are saying. I am thinking since the FAA certified the MAX to begin with, after eating all the "crow", and forcing Boeing to jump through all the hoops, they just might make an exception. The Boeing people are going to want to re-name the Max. The FAA is going to want to distance itself from the original certification process. Just seems like it would be a win-win.
After all this time, they could certainly say it has been a complete re-certification!
Anyway, just a guess.
djames225
djames225 1
Good analogy and I agree the FAA will want to wash it's hands after this. But still have to go through all the paperwork and the MAX is still not certified to FAA standards, plus with them all parked more than a year.....Remember that their are other agencies besides the FAA that can also shake their heads "no".
Quirkyfrog
Robert Cowling 1
If I could do it, I'd force them to bring back the 757, and KILL the 737Max. Kill it dead dead dead!

Good that they have gotten a clue, and are going with something that works already, and people love.
djames225
djames225 3
SHHHH..Chicago will find something to throw a wrench into the works.
JWM1
Joseph Mathews 1
Reinventing the 737 worked just fine, didn't it?
ravanviman
hal pushpak 4
Well said!
Nothing like blowing the dust off an old design, to save some money. Works well doesn't it?
This company never learns..(as long as bean counters run the show.)
ecstevens
Emil Stevens 1
They should call at the 757 XL! And the XL moniker can stand for whatever you want- extra long, extra luxurious, extremely livable, extreme luxury, etc!
Propwash122
Peter Fuller 1
Quoting this AirlinerWatch article: “...Boeing has been looking at distilling the two-aircraft NMA program into one new 757-style plane, while studying a more modest 767 upgrade, some sources claimed.”

“new 757-style plane” does not equal a reborn 757. Maybe Boeing will develop something new with similar capacity and range, someday, but it won’t be a reborn 757 or necessarily look like the 757.

Actually there’s nothing to see here: “some sources claimed” means rumors and speculation, not actual news.
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 0
They already gave us that. It was called the B757-300.
bentwing60
bentwing60 9
It would be new systems, new wing, and a lighter airplane and the guys that fly jets for a living know that the 757 was a bad ass from the beginning.

And, a much revered name! Boeing 757.
bingobanner
Russ Brown -2
Bad ass meaning Good? Bad ass meaning Bad? I am not a pilot so I don't know the technical terms.
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 4
Hot rod with wings!
bingobanner
Russ Brown 1
Thank you.
bentwing60
bentwing60 3
wannabehocker
wannabehocker -2
So they haven't learned their lesson from beating the dead horse that was the 737....now they are going to do it again with the 757....as Einstein said Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.
#BeginningOfTheEnd for Boeing
pilot62
Scott Campbell 2
Except the 57 was designed for larger engines,(Hi-steppin 57) and wasn't designed in the 60's, it's also highly utilized for cargo, and can handle shorter runways like KSNA .. Delta was stilling flying a daily SNA to ATL 57 route. United flew them often, (in the past) as well SNA to ORD and they were full. The 57-300 is probably the best way to serve major hub to hub service, and many Hawaiian routes as well.Pilot's love them and passengers as well. the triple 7 shouldve have been a 57' redo with composite wings and new engines - now more than ever
davebartell
Dave Bartell -5
757 always had my vote for worst aircraft
triton120
triton120 2
Dave Bartell, the 757 is one of the best designed and engineered planes ever. That's from a guy, who has maintained and flown on them since they were put in service.

Accedi

Non hai un account? Registrati adesso (è gratis) per usufruire di funzioni personalizzate, allarmi voli e molto altro!
Questo sito web utilizza cookie. Continuando a usare e a navigare su questo sito, accetti l'utilizzo dei cookie.
Chiudi
Sapevi che il tracking dei voli di FlightAware è supportato dalla pubblicità?
Puoi aiutarci a mantenere FlightAware gratuito accettando gli annunci pubblicitari di FlightAware.com. Ci impegniamo per far sì che i nostri annunci siano pertinenti e discreti per offrire la migliore esperienza. Aggiungere gli annunci ammessi su FlightAware è facile e veloce oppure puoi prendere in considerazione i nostri account premium.
Chiudi