Back to Squawk list
  • 15

Boeing Sees No Business Case For 757 MAX

Aggiunto
 
Whatever else Boeing may be discussing with potential customers at this year’s International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading (Istat) meeting regarding options for replacing the 757, we now at least know it will not be talking about bringing the original aircraft back to life with new engines. (aviationweek.com) Altro...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


preacher1
preacher1 8
Many of us lament the passing of the 757 and read it a stupid decision by Boeing. As the newest one out the is about 10-11 years old, those in the desert are probably just at the end of the road, time wise, rather than usused. It really doesn't matter. Airbus has 10 years head start on the type and if Boeing started today, would be a minimum of 5 getting something in the air. Whatever they bring out will probably not look or perform anything like the 57 did. She was a pilot's machine.
LGM118
LGM118 4
Maybe it wasn't a great decision in retrospect, given that a re-engined 757 would basically be a direct (and probably pretty strong) competitor with the A321neoLR at a pretty low cost, but the reality is that a lot of the developments with the 757 being pushed into the transatlantic market actually happened after the production lines closed in 2005.

Remember, from 2002 to 2005 Boeing received a total of 7 orders. At the time, the decision, though unfortunate, was a smart business decision. The US and European airline markets were depressed and looking for smaller planes. Boeing had no way of knowing that fuel prices would skyrocket in 2007-2008, that airlines would then equip their 757's with blended winglets, and then realize they could put in enough seats to still make money on transatlantic routes, thereby creating a new market for the planes to give them an extra 5-10 extra years of service life. Boeing figured that around now, most 757's would be out in the Mojave.

Yes, in hindsight it seems like a bad decision, but that's the way things go. And in fairness, Boeing had been working on the assumption that some airlines would use a shortened 787 variant as a 757 replacement and would make requests for one.
preacher1
preacher1 5
Problem is that nobody gives a tinkers damn anymore as to what something looks like or how it performs and I am not speaking in economies there, I am talking about how it PERFORMS. Sad part is also that neither one of those things will add a nickel to the revenue generated on a run from A to B, but Boeing is gonna have a big step to make if they were to follow the 757 with something. There is nothing to surpass pilot's pride when you go down the taxiway in that high steppin' lady. Anything less in the looks department and you have just another airplane.
LGM118
LGM118 2
Oh, I totally agree the 757 is a great plane. What I'm also saying is that it didn't make business sense for Boeing to keep making them in 2005. We can lament that the free market puts little value on things that don't directly contribute to the bottom line (there is a loose link to pilot morale here, but it's not really quantifiable and it definitely doesn't have a measurable impact on cost/revenue).

If we don't like how the market does things, the alternative is something that isn't the market. Now, setting up a state-run system for the sole purpose of supporting good-looking airliners that are pilot-friendly isn't exactly the most dangerous example of government interference in the market, but most free-market types would say that the government would get it wrong.
30west
30west 1
I think we're in agreement from what we have both written.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Government could screw up a steelie ball with a wooden mallet in the middle of a 40 acre field. Just look at our current USAF and it's beloved F35 hunk of junk.
LGM118
LGM118 4
Ending the 757 production lines made short-term sense in 2005. It did not make long-term sense when looking at where the airline market would be in 10 years, but it did make sense based on where it was in 2005. Boeing had poor leadership at the time.

Strong-willed and visionary leadership (or the lack thereof) has impacts; consider that when Boeing closed down the 757 lines in 2005, they had 4 CEOs in under 3 years (Condit resigned in 2003, was succeeded by Stonecipher, who resigned in 2005 and was replaced first by James Bell as acting CEO and then later in 2005 by Jim McNerney). It's hard to have a company think about what the market will look like in 10 years if the leadership can't even think beyond the next 10 months.

I'm in grad school to be a city planner; I'm going to be working for the government, so I do obviously have some level of bias there, but I will say that this isn't about government vs. private sector, this is about good leadership vs. poor leadership. The government is just as capable of having great, long-term visionary figures as the private sector, as well as having the kind of morons who cancel the 757 because orders declined post-9/11 even though the program as a whole was still profitable.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, McNerney has been there about 7 years now and has hit 65, mandatory retirement. Wonder who will take his place
LGM118
LGM118 1
Isn't mandatory retirement only a thing for pilots? Does Boeing have some policy on this?
preacher1
preacher1 1
Boeing has it too. I saw it published somewhere the other day with that same question under it.
30west
30west 1
I have an old military buddy who still works at Boeing on the 777 program in Everett. He just turned 70. He is a hard worker who loves to work and not sure when he will retire.
preacher1
preacher1 1
It is primarily for executives but is regularly waived if he wants to continue. He has put Mullenberg & Conner in place behind him so there will be an orderly transition when he does retire
30west
30west 1
That makes sense, he belongs (begrudgingly) to the union. He works in the Weight-on-Wheels group.
30west
30west 2
Yes, the 757 is a great performer (JFK-SNA, 180 pax, IFR alt + reserves and turn off the RW in 3000' just past the end of 19L without hard braking or max reverse; then, SNA-JFK, 180 pax, IFR alt +reserves, no problem using a 5700' RW), an absolutely beautiful jet (long legs, slim fuselage and large nacelles...but I digress) and the best flying airliner that I have ever flown, bar none. BTW, I have NOT flown the 777, 787 or the 747.

That being said, Boeing uses, as part of the decision, the non-standard assembly process that increases the cost.
I guess we have to believe that they want to sell jets, make a profit doing so and they don't see the 75 in the equation. I don't think that there is an anti-757 conspiracy, but who knows. Perhaps, if they had not put her production line down the decision would be different.
blueashflyer
I wish my wife had long legs, a slim fuselage and large nacelles, but I digress...
30west
30west 2
I hear ya brother!!
preacher1
preacher1 4
I flew one for 26 years, after a 707, and a 767 followed this one I got checked in after retirement. Ain't no comparison, but as the post says below, Boeing execs are coughing in Airbus dust right now, and will for awhile. With only a half dozen orders or so in 2005, it was probably a good business decision at the time to kill it off, but I sure hated to see her go.
30west
30west 1
Likewise!
HunterTS4
Toby Sharp 2
Go watch any "heavy".......the 75 will leave the ground and get stopped at a distance that is laughable about the other planes, best wing ever on an airliner!
PSBJ
PSBJ 4
The 757 is also much LIGHTER than twin-asle "heavies," even its close relative, the 767.
PSBJ
PSBJ 1
preacher1
preacher1 1
We knew what you meant. LOL
preacher1
preacher1 2
Well, it was branded "Heavy" because of wake turbulence rather than weight. It just relegated to "Large" in 2010 I think, and at the same time, they gave "Super" to the 380.
s2v8377
s2v8377 2
I think Boeing is crazy!!! Get a re-engined 757 back on production and get it out there now to compete against the inferior A321NEOLR, and worry about designing a new airplane for 2030 later!!!

The A321NEOLR is a better design then the 737-900ER, but not the 757!!!
JENNYJET
Why not stretch the B737-9 into a -10, add B787 engines and undercarriage then you have a narrowbody B787 to enable operations of B757 routes with the seating capacity to suit!
preacher1
preacher1 1
That might work if the engines weren't too big but you have nothing in the looks or performance department anywhere near the 757
DSHartje
I agree! They could also easily add the new Split Winglets to to add fuel efficiency.
patpylot
the loud coughing happening by boeing execs is them eating airbus dust , both 321neo and 330 neo exhaust. If they cannot find a business case, they are not looking or thinking either. The timidity that resisted the 777 is in full view here. tweak, re-engine,and go sell the things. Is there really no market for such a revival?
DSHartje
Boeing needs to make a replacement for the 757! There is still a market for the aircraft type,and no one else makes an aircraft like it!

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