Resurrect the 757

Arnold

Arnold

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,483
Location
Philadelphia Area
Display Name
Display name:
Arnold
I can't say I begin to understand why the 757 was consigned to the dustbin of history while the 737 wasn't.
 
Same reason most decisions are made. $$$
 
Arnold said:
I can't say I begin to understand why the 757 was consigned to the dustbin of history while the 737 wasn't.
Click to expand...
Harry Stonecipher didn’t like the 757. Would have made a lot more sense...newer design, already in CAD, plenty of room for larger engines. But Harry didn’t like it.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Doesn't the 757 cost a lot more per aircraft to purchase (I don't know about the LCC)?

The 737 has fewer seats... better suited to the routes with lower passenger numbers

The 757 is treated as a heavy for the purpose of separation minimums (at least it used to be)... but I suppose that annoys ATC more than the airlines.
 
Bob Noel said:
Doesn't the 757 cost a lot more per aircraft to purchase (I don't know about the LCC)?

The 737 has fewer seats... better suited to the routes with lower passenger numbers

The 757 is treated as a heavy for the purpose of separation minimums (at least it used to be)... but I suppose that annoys ATC more than the airlines.
Click to expand...

Still is. I remember when they updated the sep mins back in the mid 90s. Apparently she produces a pretty nasty set of vortices without actually being a heavy.
 
Arnold said:
I can't say I begin to understand why the 757 was consigned to the dustbin of history while the 737 wasn't.
Click to expand...
The 757 is too big and heavy. Can't match the efficiency of the larger, updated 737s. For those reasons, and probably others, the customers stopped ordering 757s. Boeing can't force its customers to order the airplane that they don't want.
 
The 737 looks and feels hodgepodgie.. like the person who takes the 1,000-ft Bungalow house and keeps adding random additions to it..

It should have stopped at the -400..

Plus, doesn't matter what kind of sawtooth engines you hang off it and huge winglets are added, the cockpit windows and the overall design just look old
 
Busflyer said:
I love flying the 757. I think they’d have a winner if they would build a 757NG.
Click to expand...
inherently I agree, but based on Boeing's current management it would be over budget and behind schedule and be riddled with issues.. years later they would still be finding tools and metal shavings and gunk inside of the airplanes from poor quality control
 
Larry in TN said:
The 757 is too big and heavy. Can't match the efficiency of the larger, updated 737s. For those reasons, and probably others, the customers stopped ordering 757s. Boeing can't force its customers to order the airplane that they don't want.
Click to expand...

And a number of their customers now wish it were still available. It is "overpowered" - ride one on the noise-abatement departure from SNA. Or out of Vail.

Busflyer said:
I love flying the 757. I think they’d have a winner if they would build a 757NG.
Click to expand...
. They'd try to call it a "MAX"
 
^and skip a bunch of numbers just to call it the "8" because that number is special for some reason
 
I had an over-the-wing exit row seat on a 757-300 from SLC-ATL last night. I remember noticing how quiet it is compared to the 737 that I rode out to Cali on earlier in the week.
 
CJones said:
I had an over-the-wing exit row seat on a 757-300 from SLC-ATL last night. I remember noticing how quiet it is compared to the 737 that I rode out to Cali on earlier in the week.
Click to expand...
Yes! the 737 seems unusually loud actually. I'm always surprised by how uncomfortable it is and how much the cabin vibrates compared to the Airbus

I used to be a big Boeing fan boy but the 737 was always something I avoided.. it also just feels small inside for some reason. The Airbus seems much bigger when you first walk in.. although I believe cabin size difference is small
 
I realize that seat configuration is an airline thing, but I never ever liked the seats (coach seats) on any 757 I had the misfortune of being in.
 
Tantalum said:
The 737 looks and feels hodgepodgie
Click to expand...
I have more time in 737s than any other airplane. 737-700/800/900/MAX 9.

I've also flown the 757 and 767. The 757 is a much nicer airplane to fly, is more capable, has longer range, and, expect for the avionics, has more modern systems. But there is no way it can compete with the similarly sized 737s (-900/MAX 9 and upcoming MAX 10) in efficiency. It is too big, too heavy, and too powerful.

Fuel burn on the 737-9 MAX is about 5,200pph in cruise. On a 757-200, with similar capacity, you're around 8,000pph.

Airlines didn't want, and still don't want, new 757s. There's nothing that Boeing could, or can, do about that.

I call the 737 'the airplane that only an accountant could love'. Accountants are the ones who pick which airplane an airline will buy.
 
Tantalum said:
Yes! the 737 seems unusually loud actually. I'm always surprised by how uncomfortable it is and how much the cabin vibrates compared to the Airbus
Click to expand...

I think it's louder on the outside too. Southwest flies out of our base and we're very used to the sound of a 737. The other day I was in Flint and my FO and I both noticed an airplane that landed in whisper-quiet fashion. He said maybe it was a 320neo, so I looked it up. Nope. Standard-issue 1997 A320. WAY quieter than the 737.
 
Engines fit fine on the 757. It’s the 737 that they’ve had to do some creative engineering to squeeze them under the wing.
 
Velocity173 said:
Still is. I remember when they updated the sep mins back in the mid 90s. Apparently she produces a pretty nasty set of vortices without actually being a heavy.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough (considering the complaints following them) they lowered them back down a couple years ago. It’s called “wake recat”. Not all facilities are authorized to use it. We treat them the same as 73’s and 320’s. Put an RJ 2.5 behind them. They really seem to get rocked behind the 737-800/900. That’s our current most complaints. They also lowered 76’s. We can be 3.5 behind them vs the old 5 with other large’s. 757’s are for sure disappearing.
 
FWIW, the LEAP engines on the MAX make it very, very quiet compared to an NG. From the flight deck, the initial climb reminds me a lot of flying the MD-80, at least until the wind noise picks up as you accelerate out of 10,000’.
 
Radar Contact said:
Oddly enough (considering the complaints following them) they lowered them back down a couple years ago. It’s called “wake recat”. Not all facilities are authorized to use it. We treat them the same as 73’s and 320’s. Put an RJ 2.5 behind them. They really seem to get rocked behind the 737-800/900. That’s our current most complaints. They also lowered 76’s. We can be 3.5 behind them vs the old 5 with other large’s. 757’s are for sure disappearing.
Click to expand...

OK. Maybe it’s just tower runway wake sep I’m thinking of then.
 
Larry in TN said:
I have more time in 737s than any other airplane. 737-700/800/900/MAX 9.

I've also flown the 757 and 767. The 757 is a much nicer airplane to fly, is more capable, has longer range, and, expect for the avionics, has more modern systems. But there is no way it can compete with the similarly sized 737s (-900/MAX 9 and upcoming MAX 10) in efficiency. It is too big, too heavy, and too powerful.

Fuel burn on the 737-9 MAX is about 5,200pph in cruise. On a 757-200, with similar capacity, you're around 8,000pph.

Airlines didn't want, and still don't want, new 757s. There's nothing that Boeing could, or can, do about that.

I call the 737 'the airplane that only an accountant could love'. Accountants are the ones who pick which airplane an airline will buy.
Click to expand...
Yes. Over time, the numbers don’t lie.
 
Busflyer said:
No such thing as too powerful!
Click to expand...
You, apparently, are not an accountant.

Radar Contact said:
We treat them the same as 73’s and 320’s. Put an RJ 2.5 behind them.
Click to expand...
EWR likes to put me (in a 739) 2.5 behind E145s with quite a bit of regularity. I've done at least three go-arounds at EWR because of that. You guys seem to do much better.

My record, during the Stadium Visual 29 at EWR was a final approach speed (target) of 165. Of course, I was following a 757-200. Didn't have to go around on that one, though. The 757 turned off mid-field on the 6,726' runway!
 
CJones said:
I had an over-the-wing exit row seat on a 757-300 from SLC-ATL last night. I remember noticing how quiet it is compared to the 737 that I rode out to Cali on earlier in the week.
Click to expand...

Is that the one with one row of 2x2 seating, because the windows were in the wrong place? (I know the windows have little to do with this, but the windows are located where the structure of the fuselage permits them). There is one seat (per side) in coach that has excellent legroom!

-Skip
 
As an expert passenger, a 757 is just a longer range 737 torture machine. Hate em both.
 
Skip Miller said:
Is that the one with one row of 2x2 seating, because the windows were in the wrong place? (I know the windows have little to do with this, but the windows are located where the structure of the fuselage permits them). There is one seat (per side) in coach that has excellent legroom!

-Skip
Click to expand...

Yep. I had the window seat with no seat in front of it. I select flights based on exit row availability. I'm 6'7" with long legs. I typically can't physically sit with my legs straight in front of me in regular coach seats. I actually have my Delta profile set up to not request upgrades to Comfort+ because I prefer exit row over those seats as well (especially now since they're not serving booze.. sheesh.. what's the point?! ;))
 
Larry in TN said:
EWR likes to put me (in a 739) 2.5 behind E145s with quite a bit of regularity. I've done at least three go-arounds at EWR because of that.
Click to expand...
Yep, in a straight 737-900 the ref speeds are just stupid fast... what I do to land those pigs is Flaps 40, Brakes 3 every single time. Actually, I do that whether it’s an 800, 900, 900ER... it just gets the ref speeds down to a somewhat “normal” range.
 
jbDC9 said:
Yep, in a straight 737-900 the ref speeds are just stupid fast... what I do to land those pigs is Flaps 40, Brakes 3 every single time. Actually, I do that whether it’s an 800, 900, 900ER... it just gets the ref speeds down to a somewhat “normal” range.
Click to expand...
I'll take 40/3 over 30/Max any day. Really need a 3.5 setting on the autobrakes. F30 to F40 seems to give an extra 7 or 8 KIAS on the Vref. Makes a big difference. And, I always liked see-saws as a kid.

Tantalum said:
I remember being surprised that in some configurations the final approach speed in the 737 was HIGHER than the 747, sometimes by a decent margin
Click to expand...
You are doing your wind additive, minimum of 5/max 15, on top of Vref, right?

I believe that the only civilian transport with higher Vref speeds than the 737-800/900 is the MD11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top