Looking over old posts about why the 757-300 and 767-400 were commercial failures, it seems like the overall consensus is that these two variants came out too late and were already obsolete in 1999.

Therefore, I can't help to wonder what makes these two variants different from the 737 NG or 747-8, both of which are based on older designs from the 60's/70's. Then of course you have the 777X...

I know the 767's 7-abreast seating and the 757's expensive production system have come up before, but is there anything else that made the 757 and 767's heydays so short-lived compared to other aged aircraft families (737, A320CEO, A330, 777, etc...).

Please don't take this as another 757 MAX thread - I simply want to know what made these families different from their Boeing and Airbus contemporaries

My take: The 737NG could do much of what the 757 was doing, and the A330 ate the 767 for lunch.

Since when do we consider them as failures? Sure the 764 and 753 didn't exactly do well, but the 752 and 762/763 did incredibly for their time period, and in general. The 767 was selling until 2014 and still makes money as a cargo jet, while everyone is rushing to fill the shoes of the 752, a role which didn't exist before it. So, were the 753/764 failures? Yes. But to think the whole program failed you must be very delusional.

They were too late. Existing customers had already bought their fleets and sales of the 757 in general were tailing off at that time.

Boeing should have struck whilst the iron was hot, not tried to warm up their product lines.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

My take: The 737NG could do much of what the 757 was doing, and the A330 ate the 767 for lunch.

And the A380 ate the 747 for dinner.

I wouldn't call the 767 a dead-end design because Boeing is still building it, although no new variants came out lately. Boeing is still selling the 767-300ER as cargo, the ERF variant. The 767 still has a long future ahead as a freighter, and especially as a tanker with the Air Force. Look how long the KC-135 has been flying, I wouldn't be surprised if military 767s remain in service past 2040. Boeing could very well refit the 767 tankers with new power plants in the future, like they refit the KC-135s with CFM-56 power plants.

The sharp market downturn after 9/11 had a massive effect on the 757-300 and probably the 767-400.

The 757-300 is also structurally inefficient due to being too long and skinny. It is at the capacity where you shouldn't really have an aircraft. Between 250 and 300 seat range in max density it is too many seats for a 6ab aircraft and too few seats to make a 8ab aircraft like the A310.

7ab is just inefficient from a seating area perspective. It is easily beaten by a similar tech and capacity 8ab aircraft. That's why the 767-400 was beaten by the A330-300. The 767 had the medium to long haul small widebody market to itself for nearly a decade which is why it sold well and gained a good reputation. There will never be another 7ab aircraft.

1989worstyear wrote:

Looking over old posts about why the 757-300 and 767-400 were commercial failures, it seems like the overall consensus is that these two variants came out too late and were already obsolete in 1999.

Therefore, I can't help to wonder what makes these two variants different from the 737 NG or 747-8, both of which are based on older designs from the 60's/70's. Then of course you have the 777X...

The 747-8 can hardly be called a success as a passenger aircraft.

757 and 767 dead end designs?......are we talking about the same 767 that first flew some 37 years ago and is STILL being produced?!?
IMO these aircraft are not even close to dead end designs because they started the pathway for what is now THE standard in aircraft design.
Your post is a bit confusing to me, but if you are infact just referring to the 753 and 764 only, then well yeah those were much more limited produced. Some say they were too late in the game, and also has to do with them being a request from a specific airline or two.
Boeing could have advanced the 767 as much as they wanted, but then that’s sorta the 787 now isn’t it?

The 757 was a dead end because it was designed to do things that aren’t needed in great quantity any more. The 757 has a big wing and powerful engines because it was meant to replace the 727-200 for smaller airports with shorter runways. In the 1970s there were many airports with runways 5-8,000ft. This hot shot capability was useful until runways were extended. Nowadays runways are long enough and smaller airplanes can efficiently operate from smaller airports. All that extra capability makes the plane too heavy and burn too much fuel.

It is a whole lot easier to make a effectively grow a smaller plane than shrink a bigger plane. The 757 wing is 50% larger than the A320/737 families. The 757 died because the market for it shrunk when smaller airplanes that are more efficient displaced it.

Bostrom wrote:

1989worstyear wrote:

Looking over old posts about why the 757-300 and 767-400 were commercial failures, it seems like the overall consensus is that these two variants came out too late and were already obsolete in 1999.

Therefore, I can't help to wonder what makes these two variants different from the 737 NG or 747-8, both of which are based on older designs from the 60's/70's. Then of course you have the 777X...

The 747-8 can hardly be called a success as a passenger aircraft.

True, but one could argue it's much more successful than the A380 as a freighter.

Please clarify: is the question specifically about the 757-300 and 767-400, or is it about the full family of each?

The 757 was in production for over 20 years, and the 767 will surpass 40 years before the KC-46 contract is fulfilled. Neither of these had major updates. The 757 actually was in production for about the same length of time as the 737 Next Gen, which is longer than the 737 Classic was.

If anything, the 767 life cycle has been unusually long for a single generation.

The 757 life cycle was of historically not uncommon length, but watching the market evolve, Boeing did not bother to pursue a next generation 757.

The biggest factor you didn't mention related to that was that the improving capabilities of smaller narrowbodies. The A321 had a decade of service under its belt and had proven it could reliably handle similar passenger numbers on most the routes 757's were flying, and the 737-900ER had just entered service and was demonstrating similar capabilities. Both had lower production and operating costs than the 757. Combined with .com bubble collapse and the acute aviation recession following the 9/11 attacks, the 757 was in a very different market than when it entered service.

Both of them did get a lot of orders and were successful, B757 is a great aircraft, I would have loved to see a 757 Max. When it comes to B767, it was a good aircraft for its time, But yeah I prefer the A330 over B767, even now I am happy that there is a A330neo and not a B767 Max.

We all know the 767-400 was a failure. No need to keep bringing this up every week. On a more positive note, bring back the MIGHTY 757

I'm pretty certain the poster is referring to the 757-300 and 767-400! ...not the overall program which obviously was a success. The poster is asking why there is no 757-NG or MAX or 767-NG or MAX, why the program did not continue and grow like what we have seen with the 737-neverending, A320, A330s etc.

At least this is my take away from the post.

They were both compromised designs. They were pre-CAD/CAM designs meant to replace models that weren’t cutting edge. The 757-200/767 did a good Job of replacing the 707 and DC8 in fleets and competing with the DC10, A300 and L1011 in the 80s, but when it came to REPLACING the 727A, A300, DC10 and L1011 in the late 90s and early 2000s, there were newer, better designs out there.

Instead of going head on with new engines, wings and weight reductions for the family, Boeing just offered reduced range stretches with engine thrust bumps. There was limited appeal. The 738 was a perfect 722 replacement, the A330 became a very cost effective 767 aternative that couldnreplace DC and L10 in manynfleets. Boeing thought that buying out MD and striking illegal deals with carriers was the answer.

Had Boeing offered an NG of the 767 in the late 90s with a it would have fared quite well. Instead they just offered slight a range extension and 777 interiors on the -200/300 and a range limited though quite modern -400, and a limited appeal 757-300. And the sales numbers reflected that b

American 767 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

My take: The 737NG could do much of what the 757 was doing, and the A330 ate the 767 for lunch.

And the A380 ate the 747 for dinner.

I wouldn't call the 767 a dead-end design because Boeing is still building it, although no new variants came out lately. Boeing is still selling the 767-300ER as cargo, the ERF variant. The 767 still has a long future ahead as a freighter, and especially as a tanker with the Air Force. Look how long the KC-135 has been flying, I wouldn't be surprised if military 767s remain in service past 2040. Boeing could very well refit the 767 tankers with new power plants in the future, like they refit the KC-135s with CFM-56 power plants.

More like the 777 ate the 747 for dinner.

Call it a failure but it does it's job very well and next to the 772, it has an understated beauty I love. I will miss it when UA retires them. I'm hoping to get someone build me an R/C version of it.

RJMAZ wrote:

The sharp market downturn after 9/11 had a massive effect on the 757-300 and probably the 767-400.

The 757-300 is also structurally inefficient due to being too long and skinny. It is at the capacity where you shouldn't really have an aircraft. Between 250 and 300 seat range in max density it is too many seats for a 6ab aircraft and too few seats to make a 8ab aircraft like the A310.

7ab is just inefficient from a seating area perspective. It is easily beaten by a similar tech and capacity 8ab aircraft. That's why the 767-400 was beaten by the A330-300. The 767 had the medium to long haul small widebody market to itself for nearly a decade which is why it sold well and gained a good reputation. There will never be another 7ab aircraft.

The 753 was the most-efficient aircraft per pax of its time. Wider means less-aerodynamically-efficient, and two aisles means the thing has to be wider to accomodate the pax. I really don't follow your logic, unless you're saying that pax don't like an aircraft to be that long.

The bottom line is that the MARKET and the fact that narrowbody cross-Pond flights weren't the norm for years later is what led to all of this. The 764 was a DC10 replacement, and quite viable except that DL really misused it initially in terms of what routes it was put on. Moreover, issues with DL's pilots and payscale had to do with the 764/777 decisions.

The success or failure of an aircraft has a lot to do with the wildly-swinging economics of the business at any given time, preferences and prejudices of management and aircraft lessors, the long-term view of where the market is going combined with a lot of "accepted wisdom", which changes constantly -- like "fleet simplification" as a mantra. Much more so than the purchase of most capital assets, the purchase of aircraft is a decidedly-fickle thing.

So no one really answered the OP’s question, I’ll reiterate for those who got emotional and didn’t read.

The 737, and 747 were upgraded over the years and now we have the 737 MAX family and the 748.
What were some of the reasons (if known) why the 757 and 767 Family didn’t receive similar upgrades i.e NG, MAX, 747-1/2/3/4/4ER/8

Couple of points


The 757 and 767 were both enormously
successful programs by any standard and are both superbly built, beautifully engineered aircraft, in other words a standard Boeing



The 757 program was terminated prematurely, no question despite their being a temporary lull in orders what they should have done is what they’ve instituted with the 747-8 program, slow the line down to a bare minimum production rate and wait
for orders to return


And they certainly would have, especially with an updated version as was proposed,
improved engines and a 2000 Gallon stabilizer tank on the 757 Would today see
It capable of a 5000 NM range on the -200 and 4000 NM on the -300


With an updated cockpit and cabin these NG 757 models would have unbeatable economics and a market niche to themselves for a tiny fraction of the billions
required to develop the ‘MOM’



It’s ironic that the 757 line was shuttered just a few years before the wave of new interest in an aircraft of its size capable of
operating longer thin routes


Closing down the 757 line was Boeing’s biggest commercial mistake, period


As for the 767, while it’s true the only significant update was the beautiful -400
and there weren’t that many sold it was still a success in two ways


The 767 was already a major success and the investment required for the -400 development was not significant as far as that highly profitable production line was concerned



More importantly, the 764 filled a need
for Continental and Delta to replace their DC10 and L1011’s, it did that perfectly with enormous savings in operating costs and prevented both carriers from turning to Airbus for that requirement

Seems there were several answers. Small airport, small aircraft, post 911 economics etc

American 767 wrote:

And the A380 ate the 747 for dinner.

Hardly. That would be the 77W that finished off the 747.

If we're to be honest with ourselves, the A380 too would be an utter flop were it not for one particular carrier, who didn't even operate pax 747s.

Max Q wrote:

The 757 program was terminated prematurely, no question despite their being a temporary lull in orders

You call 7 aircraft ordered, in the span of more than 3yrs, "a temporary lull"..??

Shareholders would call that a completely unjustifiable waste of resources.

Max Q wrote:

It’s ironic that the 757 line was shuttered just a few years before the wave of new interest in an aircraft of its size capable of
operating longer thin routes

...which does not actually translate into carriers wanting 757s, as there were plenty of fully capable examples able to fly for two more decades, readily available but untaken.

Max Q wrote:

Closing down the 757 line was Boeing’s biggest commercial mistake, period

No, repeating that absurd statement as if it were remotely fact, is a mistake.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

My take: The 737NG could do much of what the 757 was doing, and the A330 ate the 767 for lunch.

Plus by the time the 737-900ER came out, there were enough young 757 aircraft available to handle the routes the 737's were incapable of handling for a couple of decades into the future. Still the 767 is still in production for freighter and military tankers.

Folks, thanks for the replies. One thing I never realized was the shorter runway requirements that drove the 757's wing design - talk about being pigeonholed.

Neither the 757 or 767 were "dead end" designs. The facts prove otherwise. They were game changers offering unparalleled safety, comfort, efficiency and performance. The 767 opened up ETOPS and the 757 is an airplane for which no one has yet to find a suitable replacement. Sadly the 767-400 and the 757-300 did not enjoy a huge sales success, but that has a lot to do with timing. So much more could be added to this argument, but all said, "dead end" is hardly a word to use in describing these magnificent aircraft.

When I think dead end, the A310 pops in to mind. It was a nice enough airplane, but somewhat of a limited production oddball.

1989worstyear wrote:

Folks, thanks for the replies. One thing I never realized was the shorter runway requirements that drove the 757's wing design - talk about being pigeonholed.

The 757 was designed as a replacement for the 727. It has the same cross section and performance criteria for short runways and hot and high airports. It wasn't until the 737-700 that the 737 had a real replacement for a 727 in terms of runway performance. It was the short field performance kit that allowed the 737-800 to replace the 727-200 Advanced one for one in no the capacity and performance.

1989worstyear wrote:

Looking over old posts about why the 757-300 and 767-400 were commercial failures, it seems like the overall consensus is that these two variants came out too late and were already obsolete in 1999.

Therefore, I can't help to wonder what makes these two variants different from the 737 NG or 747-8, both of which are based on older designs from the 60's/70's. Then of course you have the 777X...

I know the 767's 7-abreast seating and the 757's expensive production system have come up before, but is there anything else that made the 757 and 767's heydays so short-lived compared to other aged aircraft families (737, A320CEO, A330, 777, etc...).

Please don't take this as another 757 MAX thread - I simply want to know what made these families different from their Boeing and Airbus contemporaries

The 757 was a fine design. But almost always planes evolve by growing, and the 757 cannot grow because of it's single aisle design. So when the large 737s/A320s came along and ate the lower half of the 757 market, and the 757 could not grow ... it's days ended.

The 767 was always a weird case. Its cabin width was inefficient, and was commercially successful because no one competed in it's niche. But when the A330 became a very good airplane, the A330 occupied the place where the 767 would have naturally grown. And a larger 767 cannot complete against a right-cabin-width A330. So it became trapped in it's niche. It's a nice size for some operations, but inefficient enough that if you can use another plane you likely will.

American 767 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

My take: The 737NG could do much of what the 757 was doing, and the A330 ate the 767 for lunch.

And the A380 ate the 747 for dinner.

I wouldn't call the 767 a dead-end design because Boeing is still building it, although no new variants came out lately. Boeing is still selling the 767-300ER as cargo, the ERF variant. The 767 still has a long future ahead as a freighter, and especially as a tanker with the Air Force. Look how long the KC-135 has been flying, I wouldn't be surprised if military 767s remain in service past 2040. Boeing could very well refit the 767 tankers with new power plants in the future, like they refit the KC-135s with CFM-56 power plants.

2040? That's only 23 years away. Considering military tankers aren't flown very intensively in peacetime, I wouldn't be surprised if they served till 2080 or even 2100. The KC-135 is still being used 60 years after they entered the USAF fleet. It could take decades to replace all the KC-135's plus all the C-135 and military 707 variants in service. If the USAF could keep a first generation jet transport and tanker around for the current 6 decades and ultimately 8 or 9 decades, why couldn't they keep a much more advanced replacement that has more modular systems?

wjcandee wrote:

The 753 was the most-efficient aircraft per pax of its time. Wider means less-aerodynamically-efficient, and two aisles means the thing has to be wider to accomodate the pax.

Can you tell more about this? What's your metric and under what conditions? I'm interested.

kitplane01 wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

The 753 was the most-efficient aircraft per pax of its time. Wider means less-aerodynamically-efficient, and two aisles means the thing has to be wider to accomodate the pax.

Can you tell more about this? What's your metric and under what conditions? I'm interested.

It's more efficient on transcon and mid-con routes per seat, but it takes longer to load. It can carry about as many passengers as a 767-200, but it doesn't have the extra weight of a second aisle.

There were studies to build 767-400ERX but Boeing simply determined a clean sheet 777 is a better choice.
As for 757, other than the problem of release time of 753, there are also the problem that if it were to grow further then it would eat into the market of widebodies

Spacepope wrote:

Bostrom wrote:

1989worstyear wrote:

Looking over old posts about why the 757-300 and 767-400 were commercial failures, it seems like the overall consensus is that these two variants came out too late and were already obsolete in 1999.

Therefore, I can't help to wonder what makes these two variants different from the 737 NG or 747-8, both of which are based on older designs from the 60's/70's. Then of course you have the 777X...

The 747-8 can hardly be called a success as a passenger aircraft.

True, but one could argue it's much more successful than the A380 as a freighter.

But the mere existence of the 747-8i put pricing pressures on the A380. The 747-8F was launched well before the 748-8i. The freighter model meant the passenger model didn't have to be profitable by itself. The A380 now has to justify all future investments solely on its passenger models.

L

American 767 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

My take: The 737NG could do much of what the 757 was doing, and the A330 ate the 767 for lunch.

And the A380 ate the 747 for dinner.

I wouldn't call the 767 a dead-end design because Boeing is still building it, although no new variants came out lately. Boeing is still selling the 767-300ER as cargo, the ERF variant. The 767 still has a long future ahead as a freighter, and especially as a tanker with the Air Force. Look how long the KC-135 has been flying, I wouldn't be surprised if military 767s remain in service past 2040. Boeing could very well refit the 767 tankers with new power plants in the future, like they refit the KC-135s with CFM-56 power plants.

I don’t see anything in reality to back up your statement that the A380 “ate the 747 for dinner”. That is about as far away from the truth as you can get.

wjcandee wrote:

The 753 was the most-efficient aircraft per pax of its time. Wider means less-aerodynamically-efficient, and two aisles means the thing has to be wider to accomodate the pax. I really don't follow your logic, unless you're saying that pax don't like an aircraft to be that long.

I disagree.

The 757-300 gained significant empty weight percentage wise for a stretch.

Usually a simple stretch like the 787-10 gains 5% empty weight but for 15% more cabin area. Range is sacrificed

A complex stretch like the A350-1000 gains 10% empty weight for 15% more cabin area, the benefit of that extra weight is that range is not sacrificed.

The 757-300 gained weight like a complex stretch but lost range like a simple stretch. Where did all that weight go? Structural efficiency is the answer. Long narrow tubes are easier to bend and need to be much stronger and heavier.

When aircraft efficiency is measured in fractions of a percentage the 757-300 wasn't that great for the range. It's empty weight per passenger wasn't any better than an A321.

American 767 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

My take: The 737NG could do much of what the 757 was doing, and the A330 ate the 767 for lunch.

And the A380 ate the 747 for dinner.

Are you serious? A plane that with the exception of a couple of airlines, no one wants. A plane that was late to the market and cost Airbus billions to develop and one they will never recoup their investment in let alone the drain it was to the other marketable aircraft. How many 380's have sold? Now compare it to the 747. Hey tell ya what, I will do the math for you. Airbus has 331 orders. Boeing has built over 1500. Now maybe we are in different time zones, but when your "lunch eater" has only sold 22% of 747 sales, that is one serious diet Airbus is on.
Ate for dinner?

RJMAZ wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

The 753 was the most-efficient aircraft per pax of its time. Wider means less-aerodynamically-efficient, and two aisles means the thing has to be wider to accomodate the pax. I really don't follow your logic, unless you're saying that pax don't like an aircraft to be that long.

I disagree.

The 757-300 gained significant empty weight percentage wise for a stretch.

Usually a simple stretch like the 787-10 gains 5% empty weight but for 15% more cabin area. Range is sacrificed

A complex stretch like the A350-1000 gains 10% empty weight for 15% more cabin area, the benefit of that extra weight is that range is not sacrificed.

The 757-300 gained weight like a complex stretch but lost range like a simple stretch. Where did all that weight go? Structural efficiency is the answer. Long narrow tubes are easier to bend and need to be much stronger and heavier.

When aircraft efficiency is measured in fractions of a percentage the 757-300 wasn't that great for the range. It's empty weight per passenger wasn't any better than an A321.

Did you want to back this up with gals/pax-mile or lbs/pax-mile on a typical route? Compared to say a 767 of its time?

By the late 1990s, when the Boeing 767-400ER was introduced, the Boeing 777-200ER was already filling missions longer than 5,500 nmi, having filled the gap between the 747-400 and 767-300ER...and in its size category, the Airbus A330-300 and nascent -200 variant was far superior to the 767-400ER in its mission range (generally missions under 10 hours; for longer missions, one would use the 77E or A342/3). Also, the 767 is a late 1970s design, although it has found a niche.

OA940 wrote:

Since when do we consider them as failures? Sure the 764 and 753 didn't exactly do well, but the 752 and 762/763 did incredibly for their time period, and in general. The 767 was selling until 2014 and still makes money as a cargo jet, while everyone is rushing to fill the shoes of the 752, a role which didn't exist before it. So, were the 753/764 failures? Yes. But to think the whole program failed you must be very delusional.

The role of the 752 did exist before it in the form of the DC-8-62, which had more range than any 752 or A321 today. The 763 was the real game-change for ETOPS.

kitplane01 wrote:

1989worstyear wrote:

Looking over old posts about why the 757-300 and 767-400 were commercial failures, it seems like the overall consensus is that these two variants came out too late and were already obsolete in 1999.

Therefore, I can't help to wonder what makes these two variants different from the 737 NG or 747-8, both of which are based on older designs from the 60's/70's. Then of course you have the 777X...

I know the 767's 7-abreast seating and the 757's expensive production system have come up before, but is there anything else that made the 757 and 767's heydays so short-lived compared to other aged aircraft families (737, A320CEO, A330, 777, etc...).

Please don't take this as another 757 MAX thread - I simply want to know what made these families different from their Boeing and Airbus contemporaries

The 757 was a fine design. But almost always planes evolve by growing, and the 757 cannot grow because of it's single aisle design. So when the large 737s/A320s came along and ate the lower half of the 757 market, and the 757 could not grow ... it's days ended.

The 767 was always a weird case. Its cabin width was inefficient, and was commercially successful because no one competed in it's niche. But when the A330 became a very good airplane, the A330 occupied the place where the 767 would have naturally grown. And a larger 767 cannot complete against a right-cabin-width A330. So it became trapped in it's niche. It's a nice size for some operations, but inefficient enough that if you can use another plane you likely will.

The 757 could have grown with newer engines and avionics and more range. 5500 nm range like the DC-8-62 on two engines and it would be a real game changer.

wjcandee wrote:

Did you want to back this up with gals/pax-mile or lbs/pax-mile on a typical route? Compared to say a 767 of its time?

Empty weight per passenger is the best metric to compare short haul CASM.

Let's compare all three at 28" pitch full economy.
737-900ER - 44600kg 215 passengers = 206kg per pas
A321CEO - 48,500kg 236 passengers = 205kg per pas
757-300 - 64300kg 280 passengers = 229kg per pas

The whole bigger wing argument doesn't apply. Wing loadgings
737-900ER - 85T 124m2 = 684kg per m2
A321CEO - 93.5T 122m2 = 766kg per m2
757-300 - 123T 185m2 = 664kg per m2

The 737-900ER wing loading is very close to the 757 long range cruise would overtake much.

The 757-200 is the one with the big wing and great long range fuel burn not the 757-300.

A 737-900ER could probably do an extra flight per day due to the quicker turn around times. This complete offsets the capacity difference.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

By the late 1990s, when the Boeing 767-400ER was introduced, the Boeing 777-200ER was already filling missions longer than 5,500 nmi, having filled the gap between the 747-400 and 767-300ER...and in its size category, the Airbus A330-300 and nascent -200 variant was far superior to the 767-400ER in its mission range (generally missions under 10 hours; for longer missions, one would use the 77E or A342/3). Also, the 767 is a late 1970s design, although it has found a niche.

This is what I'm getting at - nobody mentions on this site or in the media the fact that the 737 NG and MAX have their roots in a 1960's design, or that the A320-200 was certified 30 years ago, but whenever someone mentions the 757 or 767, it's always "it's a 70s airplane" etc...

However, looking at the above posts it looks to me like it simply isn't a matter of only age or technology - it seems like the subject models were mainly constrained by their size and the changing markets over the past almost 40 years. Simply focusing on the decade an initial variant was designed would mean that the 737 would have died 20 years ago with the Classics, and Airbus would have never went with their NEO variants.

neutronstar73 wrote:

L

American 767 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

My take: The 737NG could do much of what the 757 was doing, and the A330 ate the 767 for lunch.

And the A380 ate the 747 for dinner.

I wouldn't call the 767 a dead-end design because Boeing is still building it, although no new variants came out lately. Boeing is still selling the 767-300ER as cargo, the ERF variant. The 767 still has a long future ahead as a freighter, and especially as a tanker with the Air Force. Look how long the KC-135 has been flying, I wouldn't be surprised if military 767s remain in service past 2040. Boeing could very well refit the 767 tankers with new power plants in the future, like they refit the KC-135s with CFM-56 power plants.

I don’t see anything in reality to back up your statement that the A380 “ate the 747 for dinner”. That is about as far away from the truth as you can get.

In reality the 777 (especially the 77W) killed the quad. It killed off the 747 and completely destroyed any market the 380 hoped to have.

Both the 747-8i and the 380 were failures. Much like the 753 and 764. Perfectly capable aircraft launched at a bad time to no market.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

The 753 was the most-efficient aircraft per pax of its time. Wider means less-aerodynamically-efficient, and two aisles means the thing has to be wider to accomodate the pax.

Can you tell more about this? What's your metric and under what conditions? I'm interested.

It's more efficient on transcon and mid-con routes per seat, but it takes longer to load. It can carry about as many passengers as a 767-200, but it doesn't have the extra weight of a second aisle.

Or often more. I remember an interesting CO substitution for a 753 that went tech, they subbed in a 762 and an ExpressJet CRJ200. I remember thinking that was odd at the time, but I looked it up and the 753 had exactly 50 more seats than the 762, thus the CRJ200 to make up the remaining 50 seats.

727200 wrote:

American 767 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

My take: The 737NG could do much of what the 757 was doing, and the A330 ate the 767 for lunch.

And the A380 ate the 747 for dinner.

Are you serious? A plane that with the exception of a couple of airlines, no one wants. A plane that was late to the market and cost Airbus billions to develop and one they will never recoup their investment in let alone the drain it was to the other marketable aircraft. How many 380's have sold? Now compare it to the 747. Hey tell ya what, I will do the math for you. Airbus has 331 orders. Boeing has built over 1500. Now maybe we are in different time zones, but when your "lunch eater" has only sold 22% of 747 sales, that is one serious diet Airbus is on.
Ate for dinner?

Yes you're right. I hear you. I was only comparing the sales of the A380 vs those of the 747-8i. The reason I say that is I'm convinced Boeing would have sold more 747-8is if the A380 had not existed.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

My take: The 737NG could do much of what the 757 was doing, and the A330 ate the 767 for lunch.

Wait, what? planes eat other planes for lunch? isn't that like cannibalism? what do they eat for dinner? save the rhetoric.

American 767 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

My take: The 737NG could do much of what the 757 was doing, and the A330 ate the 767 for lunch.

And the A380 ate the 747 for dinner.

I wouldn't call the 767 a dead-end design because Boeing is still building it, although no new variants came out lately. Boeing is still selling the 767-300ER as cargo, the ERF variant. The 767 still has a long future ahead as a freighter, and especially as a tanker with the Air Force. Look how long the KC-135 has been flying, I wouldn't be surprised if military 767s remain in service past 2040. Boeing could very well refit the 767 tankers with new power plants in the future, like they refit the KC-135s with CFM-56 power plants.

2040, hell that isn’t even a long time in the future anymore. I rather expect 2055-2060 before USAF 767 tankers are done.

Flighty wrote:

American 767 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

My take: The 737NG could do much of what the 757 was doing, and the A330 ate the 767 for lunch.

And the A380 ate the 747 for dinner.

I wouldn't call the 767 a dead-end design because Boeing is still building it, although no new variants came out lately. Boeing is still selling the 767-300ER as cargo, the ERF variant. The 767 still has a long future ahead as a freighter, and especially as a tanker with the Air Force. Look how long the KC-135 has been flying, I wouldn't be surprised if military 767s remain in service past 2040. Boeing could very well refit the 767 tankers with new power plants in the future, like they refit the KC-135s with CFM-56 power plants.

2040, hell that isn’t even a long time in the future anymore. I rather expect 2055-2060 before USAF 767 tankers are done.

Tankers aren't flown anywhere near the hours commercial airplanes of the same model are. I wouldn't be surprised if the USAF is still replacing KC-135, C-135, KC-10, and 707, based aircraft in 2040. The KC-135 fleet has been in service 60 years so far. I wouldn't be surprised if KC-46 and other 767 based planes are in service 80+ years.

Right now, Boeing is wishing they never discontinued the 753. Just because it didn't sell at the time doesn't mean it was obsolete... they are now spending billions developing a replacement.

As for the 767, not sure why you're calling that a failure. Been flying for 37 years and production hasn't ceased. It may not have been as popular or profitable as the A330, but was still a financial success.

wjcandee wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

The 753 was the most-efficient aircraft per pax of its time. Wider means less-aerodynamically-efficient, and two aisles means the thing has to be wider to accomodate the pax. I really don't follow your logic, unless you're saying that pax don't like an aircraft to be that long.

I disagree.

The 757-300 gained significant empty weight percentage wise for a stretch.

Usually a simple stretch like the 787-10 gains 5% empty weight but for 15% more cabin area. Range is sacrificed

A complex stretch like the A350-1000 gains 10% empty weight for 15% more cabin area, the benefit of that extra weight is that range is not sacrificed.

The 757-300 gained weight like a complex stretch but lost range like a simple stretch. Where did all that weight go? Structural efficiency is the answer. Long narrow tubes are easier to bend and need to be much stronger and heavier.

When aircraft efficiency is measured in fractions of a percentage the 757-300 wasn't that great for the range. It's empty weight per passenger wasn't any better than an A321.

Did you want to back this up with gals/pax-mile or lbs/pax-mile on a typical route? Compared to say a 767 of its time?

You (wjcandee) made the original claim. I would also be interested in any data you might have to substantiate your claim.

CaptnSnow71 wrote:

Right now, Boeing is wishing they never discontinued the 753. Just because it didn't sell at the time doesn't mean it was obsolete... they are now spending billions developing a replacement.

As for the 767, not sure why you're calling that a failure. Been flying for 37 years and production hasn't ceased. It may not have been as popular or profitable as the A330, but was still a financial success.

They would be spending billions developing some sort of product anyway, unless they wanted to end up like McDonnell Douglas.

Had the 753 been developed 5-10 years earlier, it probably would have sold more units. It had the misfortune of having about half of Continental's order cancelled after 9-11. Still the demand for 757-200's was drying up as the 737NG performed many of the missions previously performed by 757-200's. Prior to the 737NG, the 757 was the only Boeing narrow body that could fly US transcons. As 752 orders dropped off the cliff after 9-11, there wasn't much point in continuing production.

As 737 NG's took over lots of the routes previously flown by 752's, the 752's were either sold off for conversion to freighters or repositioned to fly the longest possible missions on which they still had an advantage. CO converted all its 752's to their international configuration with 16 lie flat business class seats. UA converted its youngest 752's to its PS configuration for premium transcon service to replace 762's it retired after 9-11 and sold off the older 752's. After the UA-CO merger, UA installed 28 of the UA lie flat business class seats on their PS configured 752's.