If an airline desired so and was prepared to pay full list price would Boeing make them a 757? Bearing in mind the parts commonality with the 767 would only really mean a fuelselage being custom produced which I’m assuming for Boeing is an easy job. I’m talking about a few one off orders, not restarting the line. Just curious to hear your opinion.

Thanks,

James

Is this humour or a serious question?
As the 757 production line doesn't exist anymore maybe they could throw a couple of 757 fuselages together with a 3d printer? Easy peasy!
Serious answer: No

I'm pretty sure Ford couldn't make a one-off Pinto from scratch.

No, Boeing could not make a B757 from scratch. All the tooling and fixtures are gone.

The cockpit on the B767 has a bunch of commonality with the B757. That commonality pretty much ends at the cockpit door.

What would full list price be, bearing in mind it's not listed?

If you've got the cash and time I'm sure Boeing would be happy to build anything from their back catalogue.

It just might take several attempts to relearn all that lost experience and recreating all that destroyed tooling.

So, doable? Sure. Sensible? Hell no. Just buy something currently in production. Even if it's bigger and more expensive to operate than a brand new B757 it'll still be cheaper overall.

How about a dozen Stratocruisers while they are at it?

delete

I love these threads.

No, Boeing would almost certainly not build a 757 for "full list price," as there hasn't been a list price for a 757 since 2003. That price was $65 million for a 752. Even adjusting that for inflation ($89.2 million) there is no way they'd do it, because you'd need to build a whole new production line at a cost that would dwarf that cost.

If you allowed them to adjust the "list price" to ten billion dollars, your answer would likely change.

Nope. Tooling is gone forever, support is gone forever.

Simply buy a321neo cabin flex or b737 max 10. 757 production is dead and there plenty of used b757 available. But nobody buys aircraft because of looks or love but because of economics. If it makes economic sense for company, even Wright Flyer is ok.

acjbbj wrote:

Nope. Tooling is gone forever, support is gone forever.

Last time I checked, (10/18/18), Boeing still supports the 757.

It might be tempting to do if the price was double a 777. But why would anyone pay that?

Part of the interest in a.net is the never-ending procession of astounding threads. Do people really think building airliners are like building a one-off boat? Or do people really think airlines purposely ignore profitable routes that an armchair CEO thinks up like a hub in ANC?

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Part of the interest in a.net is the never-ending procession of astounding threads. Do people really think building airliners are like building a one-off boat? Or do people really think airlines purposely ignore profitable routes that an armchair CEO thinks up like a hub in ANC?

GF

And part of the beauty of Anet is how much people can learn here. Just as I have since I started reading the site nearly 20 years ago and since I officially joined the forums 13 years ago. If we ba-humbug everything naieve we will have one worthless site on our hands.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Part of the interest in a.net is the never-ending procession of astounding threads. Do people really think building airliners are like building a one-off boat? Or do people really think airlines purposely ignore profitable routes that an armchair CEO thinks up like a hub in ANC?

GF

What a pointless remark. There is almost always something new to be learned in the discussion these topics generate, even if not directly related to the question at hand.

For 20 Billion dollars maybe, since that’s what the cost of recreating the program would likely be... at the low end.

If this were possible then Airbus should build a Concorde.

Yes, they would. But not at list price. The airline would have to pay for all the tooling and upstart costs as well. But yes, Boeing absolutely would do it if there was enough money involved. Just paying the costs wouldn't be enough though, it would have to be so worthwhile for Boeing that they would be able to justify moving engineers in from other programs that would suffer in the meantime.

Boeing is already stretched to the limits. They can hardly handle the stuff on their plate as it is. This particular topic has been discussed numerous times in the past and the answer remains a firm no.

BravoOne wrote:

How about a dozen Stratocruisers while they are at it?

Now there's a brilliant idea!

BravoOne wrote:

Last time I checked, (10/18/18), Boeing still supports the 757.

Boeing may still support currently active aircraft and operators, but vendor support for the production line is gone. Boeing could build new tooling and set up the line, but the suppliers are either gone or doing other work.

... on a request from a.net? Apparently not.

BravoOne wrote:

Boeing is already stretched to the limits. They can hardly handle the stuff on their plate as it is. This particular topic has been discussed numerous times in the past and the answer remains a firm no.

People can't seem to grasp reality. The 757 is an amazing airplane. So were the 707, 720, and 727. It reached the end of its lifespan. People can't grasp that Boeing shut down the 757 production line well over 10 years ago because NO-ONE WOULD BUY IT anymore. That's why Boeing doesn't make 757s. If there were profitable market, it would still be in production.

I think their legal team would say HELL NO! Could this vintage/new airplane even be certified? And who would support it? Most vendors HATE one off custom ANYTHING......

Forget the 757...make us some B-17's and B29's !!

Hi, OP. Welcome to A.net. Please forgive the other members. I think they all forget the days when they knew nothing about airplanes and asked elementary questions. Let me do my best to answer for you.

The production of an airliner requires a number of things, but the big ones are 1) supplies of all the components 2) the tooling to assemble the aircraft (and some of the tooling consists of components the size of a medium-sized office building) 3) an established workflow and dedicated set of workers who know how to assemble the aircraft.

The last 757 was delivered in 2005. Many of the essential tooling components used to assemble the airframe has been destroyed because, as I said, the components are so large that there's nowhere to store them economically. Even if Boeing were inclined to restart the line, it's not clear that they have the engineering drawings for all the tooling (they have the engineering drawings for the 757, presumably). So they might have to literally reinvent a lot of the tooling. Then there's the fact that the component suppliers for the 757 have stopped producing many of the components. Pratt and Whitney delivered their last F117 engine (which was the military version of the PW2000) to the USAF in 2016, so they can't build the engine anymore, and I don't think that RR is making their RB-211 for the model, either. Finally, Boeing would have to re-train an entirely new set of workers to construct the airframe.

Basically, the 757 program would have to be re-invented from the ground up, everything except the aircraft itself. Just for one aircraft. I'm not sure if there is a sum of money Boeing would accept for it and even if everyone at Boeing, the suppliers, and the customer lost all sense of rationality and went for it, it would take at least five years to produce a new copy of this airliner designed in the 1970s.

So is it possible? Yes. It's also possible that someone might re-open the Harland & Wolff Shipyards and start producing new Olympic-class ocean liners that can't be certified under modern SOLAS laws. It's also possible that all of the subatomic particles that make up the planet Earth will decide to jump three meters outsystem all at once at 9AM on Tuesday. But is it likely? No, not at all.

Georgetown wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Part of the interest in a.net is the never-ending procession of astounding threads. Do people really think building airliners are like building a one-off boat? Or do people really think airlines purposely ignore profitable routes that an armchair CEO thinks up like a hub in ANC?

GF

And part of the beauty of Anet is how much people can learn here. Just as I have since I started reading the site nearly 20 years ago and since I officially joined the forums 13 years ago. If we ba-humbug everything naieve we will have one worthless site on our hands.

^This. In defense of the OP, there are many people that don't understand the manufacturing of an aircraft and how it differs from cars or small boats due to the sheer size. Ford "could" make a 1 off Pinto in a machine shop and using 3D printers if they wanted to. Boeing couldn't produce a 757 at a remotely reasonable cost because there would be a bunch of enormous, custom jigs that would be needed to construct it.

DocLightning wrote:

Hi, OP. Welcome to A.net. Please forgive the other members. I think they all forget the days when they knew nothing about airplanes and asked elementary questions. Let me do my best to answer for you.

The production of an airliner requires a number of things, but the big ones are 1) supplies of all the components 2) the tooling to assemble the aircraft (and some of the tooling consists of components the size of a medium-sized office building) 3) an established workflow and dedicated set of workers who know how to assemble the aircraft.

The last 757 was delivered in 2005. Many of the essential tooling components used to assemble the airframe has been destroyed because, as I said, the components are so large that there's nowhere to store them economically. Even if Boeing were inclined to restart the line, it's not clear that they have the engineering drawings for all the tooling (they have the engineering drawings for the 757, presumably). So they might have to literally reinvent a lot of the tooling. Then there's the fact that the component suppliers for the 757 have stopped producing many of the components. Pratt and Whitney delivered their last F117 engine (which was the military version of the PW2000) to the USAF in 2016, so they can't build the engine anymore, and I don't think that RR is making their RB-211 for the model, either. Finally, Boeing would have to re-train an entirely new set of workers to construct the airframe.

Basically, the 757 program would have to be re-invented from the ground up, everything except the aircraft itself. Just for one aircraft. I'm not sure if there is a sum of money Boeing would accept for it and even if everyone at Boeing, the suppliers, and the customer lost all sense of rationality and went for it, it would take at least five years to produce a new copy of this airliner designed in the 1970s.

So is it possible? Yes. It's also possible that someone might re-open the Harland & Wolff Shipyards and start producing new Olympic-class ocean liners that can't be certified under modern SOLAS laws. It's also possible that all of the subatomic particles that make up the planet Earth will decide to jump three meters outsystem all at once at 9AM on Tuesday. But is it likely? No, not at all.

Amen. Thank you for taking the time to explain it to the OP without ridiculing him. This is the reason why people come back to this forum. And for the people who don't like it, don't click on the thread, you know what to expect and could ignore it.

Great post DocLightning and thank you.

The cost of certification is the big gorilla in doing variants. Boeing spent a lot of money certifying the 764 but it only sold

The last 737-600 was delivered in 2006 and was dropped from the price list in 2012. At that point, probably all parts unique to the -600 ceased to be produced. New parts for spares would be quite expensive after this point, it is to the boneyard to find those parts. A new -600 would entail a substantial certification costs to restart the line for it, even though the 737-700 is still being produced but no new NG orders are being accepted.

The agony with the A380 and B748 production is it costs far less to build at 5-6 per year just keeping the line open than to idle the line for a year, then restart production. As I am not in the industry I do not know what the idle line time is before re certification is required of the production. It is similar to a pilot needing so many hours of flying to stay 'current'. The worker's loose their skills over the months, even if working on a different line.

There was a request to Boeing to restart 767 passenger production for around 3 dozen planes with the freighter still in production. The cost to do this apparently was not enticing, as the order never came to pass.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Great post DocLightning and thank you.

The cost of certification is the big gorilla in doing variants. Boeing spent a lot of money certifying the 764 but it only sold

The last 737-600 was delivered in 2006 and was dropped from the price list in 2012. At that point, probably all parts unique to the -600 ceased to be produced. New parts for spares would be quite expensive after this point, it is to the boneyard to find those parts. A new -600 would entail a substantial certification costs to restart the line for it, even though the 737-700 is still being produced but no new NG orders are being accepted.

The agony with the A380 and B748 production is it costs far less to build at 5-6 per year just keeping the line open than to idle the line for a year, then restart production. As I am not in the industry I do not know what the idle line time is before re certification is required of the production. It is similar to a pilot needing so many hours of flying to stay 'current'. The worker's loose their skills over the months, even if working on a different line.

There was a request to Boeing to restart 767 passenger production for around 3 dozen planes with the freighter still in production. The cost to do this apparently was not enticing, as the order never came to pass.

The business case for reopening the 767-300ER line was looked at and it didn’t plan out. It would need the FedEx 767F style Flight Deck. The legacy flight deck displays and many components are no longer available due to obsolescence.

BoeingGuy wrote:

The business case for reopening the 767-300ER line was looked at and it didn’t plan out. It would need the FedEx 767F style Flight Deck. The legacy flight deck displays and many components are no longer available due to obsolescence.

So true. What I was trying to point out was that putting passenger interiors into the current in production 767F was too big a leap for 40 copies. The pieces for the 767 passenger plane that are not common to the current 767F are out of production and not available at practical costs. I suppose if someone wanted to spend a couple Billion to reopen the production in this case, it could be done.

To restart 767-400 production I am guessing that it would cost nearly half of what the MOM would be to develop as all of the tooling is gone. Then each copy would cost more than a 777X.

jamesshamilton wrote:

If an airline desired so and was prepared to pay full list price would Boeing make them a 757? Bearing in mind the parts commonality with the 767 would only really mean a fuelselage being custom produced which I’m assuming for Boeing is an easy job. I’m talking about a few one off orders, not restarting the line. Just curious to hear your opinion.

Thanks,

James

Despite us having the "When will Boeing restart the 757 production?"-thread every three months, I still like your question a lot! Because I like the 757 and because one can give a lot of theoretical answers on it.

We all know, it's not likely and won't happen, but why not dive into it from a theoretical point of view, right?


So if there is a customer who wants a couple of 757s, or 40 or just one single plane, would Boeing do it? I think there answer is not a clear "no", because it's a matter of how much this customer is willing to pay. Let's assume he just wants one single plane (it doesn't really matter, but let's focus on one plane)...

Boeing would need to build a new production line, build the tooling, get suplliers onboard, because Boeing is more a creator and integrator. Most manufacturing is done at 3rd party suppliers. So now they don't plan to produce 1000 or 2000 airplanes over the lifetime of this program, but just that single plane the customer wants. Boeing could do that. But they would have to ask for 5-10 billion US Dollar to that single plane. Perhaps even more, considering you need engines, which aren't available. And you need to certify this ship. That's a helluva lot of work for a single airplane.

So now, let's think bigger, let's say there is an airline customer, which wants 100 757NGs, with another 100 options on top. This customer also wants 25% less fuel costs than the old 757, he wants the plane to be stretched another four rows and fly it 1000nm farther than the old 757s. I think the outcome would be the same. It might get Boeing "going" into more serious mode. They might look at that RFP for a while. If they see the chance of other customers wanting the same plane, they might shop the idea around the market and see if there is interest. If yes, they might launch a new program. But usually, that's not how it works. You need the outlook of selling 1000 to 3000 airplanes today for an airliner program to be launched successfully, because todays airplanes cost billions of Dollars to develop.

Back in the 1970s, you could develop an aircraft for 100 million Dollars (about 550-650 MUSD in today's Dollars) and thus selling like 50 of them was a huge success. That was "cheap". But the demand for more safety, better technology, lower fuel consumption, higher certification standards etc., it has made aircraft development a multi-billion-dollar business, that requires an outlook of selling 1000+ aircraft.

On the other hand, the enhanced 757 described above, might be the MOM-airplane Boeing is shopping around the market since two years. It won't look like a 757, it won't be a 757, but it will cater the same market between 737 and 787 (or between A32X and A330/A350).

TOGA10 wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

Hi, OP. Welcome to A.net. Please forgive the other members. I think they all forget the days when they knew nothing about airplanes and asked elementary questions. Let me do my best to answer for you.

The production of an airliner requires a number of things, but the big ones are 1) supplies of all the components 2) the tooling to assemble the aircraft (and some of the tooling consists of components the size of a medium-sized office building) 3) an established workflow and dedicated set of workers who know how to assemble the aircraft.

The last 757 was delivered in 2005. Many of the essential tooling components used to assemble the airframe has been destroyed because, as I said, the components are so large that there's nowhere to store them economically. Even if Boeing were inclined to restart the line, it's not clear that they have the engineering drawings for all the tooling (they have the engineering drawings for the 757, presumably). So they might have to literally reinvent a lot of the tooling. Then there's the fact that the component suppliers for the 757 have stopped producing many of the components. Pratt and Whitney delivered their last F117 engine (which was the military version of the PW2000) to the USAF in 2016, so they can't build the engine anymore, and I don't think that RR is making their RB-211 for the model, either. Finally, Boeing would have to re-train an entirely new set of workers to construct the airframe.

Basically, the 757 program would have to be re-invented from the ground up, everything except the aircraft itself. Just for one aircraft. I'm not sure if there is a sum of money Boeing would accept for it and even if everyone at Boeing, the suppliers, and the customer lost all sense of rationality and went for it, it would take at least five years to produce a new copy of this airliner designed in the 1970s.

So is it possible? Yes. It's also possible that someone might re-open the Harland & Wolff Shipyards and start producing new Olympic-class ocean liners that can't be certified under modern SOLAS laws. It's also possible that all of the subatomic particles that make up the planet Earth will decide to jump three meters outsystem all at once at 9AM on Tuesday. But is it likely? No, not at all.

Amen. Thank you for taking the time to explain it to the OP without ridiculing him. This is the reason why people come back to this forum. And for the people who don't like it, don't click on the thread, you know what to expect and could ignore it.

Can't agree more, thanks for the post Doc, always nice to read something positive here. Since registration is open to anyone without paying, the arseyness sure has gone to new heights here. People all forgot that they once started with that hobby, too and pretend to be know-it-alls. Way too many negative comments and yours is delightful in comparision...

CARST wrote:

jamesshamilton wrote:

If an airline desired so and was prepared to pay full list price would Boeing make them a 757? Bearing in mind the parts commonality with the 767 would only really mean a fuelselage being custom produced which I’m assuming for Boeing is an easy job. I’m talking about a few one off orders, not restarting the line. Just curious to hear your opinion.

Thanks,

James

Boeing would need to build a new production line, build the tooling, get suplliers onboard, because Boeing is more a creator and integrator. Most manufacturing is done at 3rd party suppliers. So now they don't plan to produce 1000 or 2000 airplanes over the lifetime of this program, but just that single plane the customer wants. Boeing could do that. But they would have to ask for 5-10 billion US Dollar to that single plane. Perhaps even more, considering you need engines, which aren't available. And you need to certify this ship. That's a helluva lot of work for a single airplane.

People keep saying the bold bit, but I don't see why it would be true. If the plane is just a literal copy of the 752 or 753, why would it need to be recertified? The opening of a new production line doesn't require a separate certification if you're just building the same old airplanes, I don't think.

IADCA wrote:

CARST wrote:

jamesshamilton wrote:

If an airline desired so and was prepared to pay full list price would Boeing make them a 757? Bearing in mind the parts commonality with the 767 would only really mean a fuelselage being custom produced which I’m assuming for Boeing is an easy job. I’m talking about a few one off orders, not restarting the line. Just curious to hear your opinion.

Thanks,

James

Boeing would need to build a new production line, build the tooling, get suplliers onboard, because Boeing is more a creator and integrator. Most manufacturing is done at 3rd party suppliers. So now they don't plan to produce 1000 or 2000 airplanes over the lifetime of this program, but just that single plane the customer wants. Boueing could do that. But they would have to ask for 5-10 billion US Dollar to that single plane. Perhaps even more, considering you need engines, which aren't available. And you need to certify this ship. That's a helluva lot of work for a single airplane.

People keep saying the bold bit, but I don't see why it would be true. If the plane is just a literal copy of the 752 or 753, why would it need to be recertified? The opening of a new production line doesn't require a separate certification if you're just building the same old airplanes, I don't think.

Sure it does. Certification requirements change over time. Boeing and the FAA have to agree on what amendment level each new airplane will have to meet for each CFR requirement. For example, just because the 757 can meet CFR 25.xxxx amnendent 25 in 1982, doesn’t mean that it would comply with the same regulation at amnendment 131.

For example, the current CFR 25.1322 for crew alerting requirement is at amendment 131. The 737 design doesn’t meet it. It did meet the older requirements in effect when it was designed. Unless the FAA were again willing to grandfather in the older requirements - which I’m speculating they would not - there is no way that Boeing could ever certify more future 737 derivatives after the Max series.

There was a day when you could hand make a single airplane. During WWII my father was a mechanic working at Lockheed and was one of the people who hand built P-38 and P-80 prototypes. Similar things are done today for prototypes of new fighters. He told me they had very few jigs. Just hammered the stuff into shape.

BoeingGuy wrote:

IADCA wrote:

CARST wrote:

Boeing would need to build a new production line, build the tooling, get suplliers onboard, because Boeing is more a creator and integrator. Most manufacturing is done at 3rd party suppliers. So now they don't plan to produce 1000 or 2000 airplanes over the lifetime of this program, but just that single plane the customer wants. Boueing could do that. But they would have to ask for 5-10 billion US Dollar to that single plane. Perhaps even more, considering you need engines, which aren't available. And you need to certify this ship. That's a helluva lot of work for a single airplane.

People keep saying the bold bit, but I don't see why it would be true. If the plane is just a literal copy of the 752 or 753, why would it need to be recertified? The opening of a new production line doesn't require a separate certification if you're just building the same old airplanes, I don't think.

Sure it does. Certification requirements change over time. Boeing and the FAA have to agree on what amendment level each new airplane will have to meet for each CFR requirement. For example, just because the 757 can meet CFR 25.xxxx amnendent 25 in 1982, doesn’t mean that it would comply with the same regulation at amnendment 131.

For example, the current CFR 25.1322 for crew alerting requirement is at amendment 131. The 737 design doesn’t meet it. It did meet the older requirements in effect when it was designed. Unless the FAA were again willing to grandfather in the older requirements - which I’m speculating they would not - there is no way that Boeing could ever certify more future 737 derivatives after the Max series.

Right, of course. But that's not what the question asks - this isn't a 757MAX or any new generation at all. It's simply about restarting production on something already certified that's no longer in production.

For example, if for some reason Boeing wanted to make a 767 passenger version (or a 747-400) again, I don't think they'd need to get any new certification, even though both those airplanes don't comply with current regs (most famously, perhaps, the lower deck exit config doesn't work for 748, but it was grandfathered) and aren't in production currently. I'm happy to learn if I'm wrong, by the way, I'm just wondering what the hook would be for the FAA to stand on and say new certs were definitely required.

Edit - never mind, managed to find it.

Then, there’s the matter of Parts Manufacturer Authorization (PMA) for the new vendors and subs that Boeing would use to replace the old ones. Each would have to prove to the FAA they could produce parts to Boeing spec and FAA standard. And, likely, a new Production Certificate. While the TC exists, Boeing may not have the PC current to resume manufacturing B757s.

The TC is pretty meaningless without a PC showing Boeing can produce planes conforming to the TC and all the vendors meet spec
GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Then, there’s the matter of Parts Manufacturer Authorization (PMA) for the new vendors and subs that Boeing would use to replace the old ones. Each would have to prove to the FAA they could produce parts to Boeing spec and FAA standard. And, likely, a new Production Certificate. While the TC exists, Boeing may not have the PC current to resume manufacturing B757s.

GF

Yep, that's basically the answer I was looking for (and had half of in the last 15 minutes or so of research). Interesting stuff.

IADCA wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

IADCA wrote:

People keep saying the bold bit, but I don't see why it would be true. If the plane is just a literal copy of the 752 or 753, why would it need to be recertified? The opening of a new production line doesn't require a separate certification if you're just building the same old airplanes, I don't think.

Sure it does. Certification requirements change over time. Boeing and the FAA have to agree on what amendment level each new airplane will have to meet for each CFR requirement. For example, just because the 757 can meet CFR 25.xxxx amnendent 25 in 1982, doesn’t mean that it would comply with the same regulation at amnendment 131.

For example, the current CFR 25.1322 for crew alerting requirement is at amendment 131. The 737 design doesn’t meet it. It did meet the older requirements in effect when it was designed. Unless the FAA were again willing to grandfather in the older requirements - which I’m speculating they would not - there is no way that Boeing could ever certify more future 737 derivatives after the Max series.

Right, of course. But that's not what the question asks - this isn't a 757MAX or any new generation at all. It's simply about restarting production on something already certified that's no longer in production.

For example, if for some reason Boeing wanted to make a 767 passenger version (or a 747-400) again, I don't think they'd need to get any new certification, even though both those airplanes don't comply with current regs (most famously, perhaps, the lower deck exit config doesn't work for 748, but it was grandfathered) and aren't in production currently. I'm happy to learn if I'm wrong, by the way, I'm just wondering what the hook would be for the FAA to stand on and say new certs were definitely required.

Edit - never mind, managed to find it.

It doesn't matter if what I replied was what was asked, it's still part of the correct answer as to why the 757 production just can't be restarted like nothing happened in the past 14 years. Starting a production line that has been discontinued for 14 years is probably going to be treated as a new program. The amendment levels of the CFR requirements are negotiated between the FAA and manufacturer. This is called the "certification basis". I'd bet my next paycheck that it wouldn't just be the old 757 cert basis.

DocLightning wrote:

It's also possible that all of the subatomic particles that make up the planet Earth will decide to jump three meters outsystem all at once at 9AM on Tuesday.

I would just like to point out that this did not occur. I confess to being a bit disappointed.

In the future please let us know the time zone in which this is supposed to occur.

DocLightning wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

It's also possible that all of the subatomic particles that make up the planet Earth will decide to jump three meters outsystem all at once at 9AM on Tuesday.

I would just like to point out that this did not occur. I confess to being a bit disappointed.

Hahaha, and I guess we are very lucky that it did not occur... I'm still here. At least I think so...

IADCA wrote:

Right, of course. But that's not what the question asks - this isn't a 757MAX or any new generation at all. It's simply about restarting production on something already certified that's no longer in production.

For example, if for some reason Boeing wanted to make a 767 passenger version (or a 747-400) again, I don't think they'd need to get any new certification, even though both those airplanes don't comply with current regs (most famously, perhaps, the lower deck exit config doesn't work for 748, but it was grandfathered) and aren't in production currently. I'm happy to learn if I'm wrong, by the way, I'm just wondering what the hook would be for the FAA to stand on and say new certs were definitely required.

Edit - never mind, managed to find it.

But that's not really important to answer the question of the OP. While I was putting my own part into the theoretical story (max'ing the 757), it won't matter if it's a 757 or 757MAX or NG. Even if you don't want to certify this thing and fly it all on an experimental license, you would have a massive problem if you want to build the whole plane newly and not reuse parts.

Here you have the 757, a large commercial airliner. Getting all the production up for it, you would be in the billions. Even if you could do that one single plane for less than a billion, that's kinda cost-prohibitiv, isn't it?!

It’s a common myth that Boeing made a huge mistake by discontinuing the 757.

Repeat after me: Boeing stopped building the 757 because no-one would buy it anymore.

I’m sure it was well studied before making the decision. The market had dried up for it and there were no prospects for future orders.

People need to get over it.

The idea that Boeing, or any other company that has a backlog that they are struggling to produce would take any amount of money for a one-off project that would divert serious resources from their regular business is laughable. Boeing has a substantial backlog for the 777X which is still being developed, they are trying to get the 797 launched, and they still have huge backlogs for the 737 and 787. All of these orders are to customers that Boeing wants to come back for more planes. And the best way to make sure they don’t is to be late with the planes already ordered because they decided to do a hare-brained project like build a new copy of an airliner that’s been out of production for over a decade. While the drawings certainly still exist, that is just the beginning. Getting an airliner from drawing to flying is a huge effort requiring probably thousands of people. And Boeing simply cannot afford for any price to divert those people from their existing tasks. And they cannot just go out on the street and hire others, as it takes a lot of training and knowledge to do these jobs.

SEPilot wrote:

The idea that Boeing, or any other company that has a backlog that they are struggling to produce would take any amount of money for a one-off project that would divert serious resources from their regular business is laughable. Boeing has a substantial backlog for the 777X which is still being developed, they are trying to get the 797 launched, and they still have huge backlogs for the 737 and 787. All of these orders are to customers that Boeing wants to come back for more planes. And the best way to make sure they don’t is to be late with the planes already ordered because they decided to do a hare-brained project like build a new copy of an airliner that’s been out of production for over a decade. While the drawings certainly still exist, that is just the beginning. Getting an airliner from drawing to flying is a huge effort requiring probably thousands of people. And Boeing simply cannot afford for any price to divert those people from their existing tasks. And they cannot just go out on the street and hire others, as it takes a lot of training and knowledge to do these jobs.

That and the fact that no-one wants to buy it anyway.

Nobody, except about 25 armchair CEOs on a.net. If they could start an airline, it’s fleet would consist of 757s and stretch A380s.


GF

Yeah. A good exercise would be comparing the financials of a hypothetical airline flying hypothetical new 757s, when its competition flies A321s. Would be interesting to see the comparisons...

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Nobody, except about 25 armchair CEOs on a.net. If they could start an airline, it’s fleet would consist of 757s and stretch A380s.


GF

You forgot the Concorde and the Space Shuttle... necessary for every a.nut CEO's fleet.

I'm surprised that Comac bothered with C919 and ARJ21 when they could have hit a home run with 757neos. Who needs certification from the West?

Project closed
Jigs and fixtures destroyed
The B757 production will never Recommence

A similiar type could be considered if there is a market for it though.

BoeingGuy wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

Boeing is already stretched to the limits. They can hardly handle the stuff on their plate as it is. This particular topic has been discussed numerous times in the past and the answer remains a firm no.

People can't seem to grasp reality. The 757 is an amazing airplane. So were the 707, 720, and 727. It reached the end of its lifespan. People can't grasp that Boeing shut down the 757 production line well over 10 years ago because NO-ONE WOULD BUY IT anymore. That's why Boeing doesn't make 757s. If there were profitable market, it would still be in production.

Funny you say that, since the industry as a whole was on a major downturn when the 757 was dropped. Airlines weren't ordering hundreds of A320s or 737s at that time either. The aircraft itself outgrew itself rather quickly with the 737NG and continuous A320 updates, the short field performance was no longer needed. It became readily apparent that its range and payload carrying ability were very needed as both manufacturers continue to try to meet 757 range.