
Why the Boeing 737 will never take the place of the 757 - smacktoward
https://thepointsguy.com/news/737-never-replace-757/
======
WalterBright
Having worked for 3 years designing 757 flight controls, it's a special plane
for me, too. I always enjoy finding the bird I'm booked on is a 757. Some of
the guys I worked with on it were an engineer's engineer. I lost my fear of
flying through working on the 757.

~~~
jrockway
> I lost my fear of flying through working on the 757.

That's refreshing. I have a friend who worked on the A380 and she says she'll
never set foot on one.

~~~
benhurmarcel
For what it's worth, I work with many people deeply involved in the A380
design from the beginning (and other Airbus aircraft), and they don't pass a
chance to fly it.

~~~
WalterBright
The Air Force would send the chief mechanics up on check rides. It's a great
way to ensure they did their job well :-)

------
ianhawes
The 737-MAX is the plane equivalent of Windows XP Service Pack 8.

> JetBlue is among airlines planning to use the [AirBus A321LR] on routes
> across the pond, serving Western Europe from New York and Boston.

This has to be a gut punch for Southwest, who has famously relied only on the
737. They're close to hitting their ceiling on domestic expansion with the 737
and can't compete on US-EU routes because of their fleet.

I like that the author points out the realities of modern 737 performance -
just because it _can_ reach coast to coast destinations doesn't mean it
_should_.

Thats not to say that the 757 is perfect. From what I've heard, maintenance is
significantly more complex than the 737. And as the article pointed out, it
takes way too long to board/deplane for the short hops that the 737 dominates
now.

~~~
Aloha
Southwest as far as I'm aware had shown no interest in transatlantic routes,
nor do I think they've hit their domestic growth limits - there are still lots
of places they don't fly.

~~~
dehrmann
Once Southwest gets over the hurdle of flying something other than 737s, it'll
have transatlantic ambitions.

~~~
riffraff
But flying a single kind of plane has a lot of advantages, doesn't it?

It seems that switching to a new plane would mean a drastic economic change.

So the transatlantic ambitions should be a cause to go past that, rather than
a side effect.

~~~
nutjob2
Having a single source for planes also has disadvantages, as the recent fiasco
demonstrates.

The CEO is on record saying that they will be evaluating having a second
source of planes next year:

[https://theaircurrent.com/airlines/southwest-wants-a-
small-a...](https://theaircurrent.com/airlines/southwest-wants-a-small-
airplane-from-boeing-or-airbus-and-that-could-reshape-aviation/)

------
Nokinside
Isn't this exactly what technical debt is? The term originated in software
engineering, but it seems to be exactly what Boeing has if we transfer the
terminology into aerospace.

> is a concept that reflects the implied cost of additional rework caused by
> choosing an easy (limited) solution now instead of using a better approach
> that would take longer

737 rated pilots are abundant, production lines are ready and paid for and
orders come in as long as the product works. There is huge incentive to do
just small fixes if you can't see technical debt in the books. When it shows
up in the bottom line company is already paying interest.

------
arcticbull
The points guy is a terrible source largely full of mistakes and poor
information.

For instance: “ If built, the 797 would bridge the range and capacity gap
between the narrowbody 737 family and the much larger 787 and 777 families — a
slot occupied by the now-geriatric 757 and 767.”

The 787 and the 767 are the same size to a rounding error. The 787 is
basically a drop in replacement for the 767 but much more efficient.

And further, the 737MAX and the A321LR (and A320neo) and even the A220 are
designed to replace the role of the 757 in air travel. The US market wants
smaller aircraft that are more efficient and fly longer range to open up more
frequencies. They’re getting them.

> “ I may be biased, since I fly it, but you might undoubtedly call it the
> most versatile jetliner Boeing has ever built. It’s a medium-capacity, high-
> performing plane able to turn a profit on both short and longer-haul routes”

Even a quick perusal down Wikipedia would tell you the 757s are incredibly
inefficient aircraft, getting a second wind a cargo haulers due to their way
outsized power to weight ratio. And even with all that they can’t make
regularly scheduled east coast transatlantic flights without often stopping
along the way if there are temperatures or headwinds.

As for domestic travel the sheer inefficiency of the planes makes them a poor
contender. Really only the full-transcon corridor made any sense at all and
even those are being replaced. JetBlue went all A320. They’re by no means
“able to turn a profit on short and medium haul flying” solely by virtue of
them being scheduled. They’re often flying them for utilization reasons. Can
you even call any of this flying “profitable” when American had a 3% margin
last quarter across their entire route network, lost money on domestic and
made it up on international?

The 737 will absolutely take the place of the 757, and already was scheduled
to prior to the MCAS issues coming to light.

~~~
WalterBright
> the 757s are incredibly inefficient aircraft

Ironic considering the genesis of the 757 was a new wing and new engines that
produced a 35% improvement on fuel efficiency over the 727 it replaced.

~~~
arcticbull
Oh definitely but that was almost 40 years ago (launched in 1981, designed
even earlier). Progress is a wonderful thing!

------
cyberferret
Never understood why the 757 wasn't more popular?? It had the best performance
in its class while still being economical. Maybe back in its day there was too
much overlap between it and the 767, but from talking to pilots who have flown
it, the 757 handled like a fighter jet, and passengers seemed to love it too.

~~~
vanniv
If the 757 were still in production today, it would still sell OK.

There is now a big demand for aircraft that size for certain routes (US
transcontinental, and second-city Transatlantic, especially the transatlantic)

What happened is that laws changed to allow twin-engine aircraft to fly routes
much farther from the nearest alternate landing site, making 757s suddenly
great vehicles for Transatlantic flights between second cities. Of course,
this happened shortly after production of the 757 ended.

~~~
inferiorhuman
_If the 757 were still in production today, it would still sell OK._

ETOPS helped the 757 into the international role sure, but the 737 and A320
are more fuel efficient and benefit from being able to share crew.

~~~
vanniv
757-200 has about 800 nautical miles more range than the longest-range 737NG.

737-900er, the longest-range 737NG only has 3000 nautical miles of range,
which is _just enough_ for TATL flights. The 757-200's slightly longer range
opens up many additional city pairs without having to upgauge to a 767.

Of course, now that Boeing has lost a couple of years due to massive failures
(like the 737-MAX), Airbus has had time to catch up -- and the A320neo-based
A321-XLR finally surpasses the 757-200 in this space.

However, the XLR seats about 70 fewer passengers than the 757, so the 757 will
probably still live on for a little while longer.

If Boeing hadn't killed the 757, and then immediately start sucking, there
might've been a refresh to a 757 MAX-like aircraft that sat 225-290, had a
4500nmi range and was efficient. But, you know, we got the real timeline
instead.

~~~
inferiorhuman
_737-900er, the longest-range 737NG only has 3000 nautical miles of range,
which is just enough for TATL flights. The 757-200 's slightly longer range
opens up many additional city pairs without having to upgauge to a 767. _

The 737-900ER doesn't have the range of the 757 but it will use less fuel on
the routes both can do.

 _However, the XLR seats about 70 fewer passengers than the 757, so the 757
will probably still live on for a little while longer._

For airlines that already have 757s, maybe. The XLR and 757-200 both offer
nearly identical seating (with the nod going to the XLR in one class config)
and range. The 757-300 can seat about 40 more in one class config, but you
take a pretty hefty range penalty. Ultimately the XLR is pretty much the
direct replacement for the 757.

The XLR (and 900ER and MAX) also have one big advantage that no revamp of the
757 will offer: commonality. You can share flight and cabin crew between the
318/319/320/321 (CEO and NEO) and between the 600/700/800/900/900ER (NG) and
7/8/9/10 (MAX).

The Airbus lineup (320/330) is further compelling because going between the
narrow and widebody product requires relatively little training.

 _If Boeing hadn 't killed the 757, and then immediately start sucking, there
might've been a refresh to a 757 MAX-like aircraft that sat 225-290, had a
4500nmi range and was efficient. But, you know, we got the real timeline
instead. _

Boeing killed the 757 because nobody bought it. Same with the 767. In fact the
only reason the 767 line is still open is because the USAF bought the KC-46.
Meanwhile 757 operators like Iceland Air were moving away from the 757 to the
MAX. The 757 was a great plane, but it was the wrong product at the wrong
time.

Personally I think the 737 ought to die. I don't like it as a passenger, and I
can't imagine it being fun in the legendarily noisy and cramped cockpit on a
long haul flight.

~~~
vanniv
On the XLR, you're right. I was misreading Wikipedia's capacity tables -- the
XLR and the -200 are virtually identical in passenger capacity

------
Animats
Boeing has botched this so badly that the replacement for the B-737 will
probably be the Comac C919. It's not clear how good an aircraft it will be,
but the financing is very favorable.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919)

~~~
peteretep
> Boeing has botched this so badly that the replacement for the 737 will
> probably be

It will definitely be the A320 family, which has none of these problems, comes
in sensible size variants already, is used extensively every day around the
world, is price comparable, and isn't going to spook Western consumers in the
same way that a Chinese plane will.

------
zeristor
Is there a way to select for the aircraft when booking a flight?

Price, flight times, and minimal number of connections are the main focus; but
is there a website that can add in aircraft type?

I realise types can be swapped, but with historical data there should be very
high probability of prediction of aircraft type at booking.

I flew a 757 back in the 1980s and have fond memories of it. This article made
me realise that a spate of flying in 737s might have been what put me off
flying for so long.

~~~
kenneth
Most airline websites and search engines will show you which type of aircraft
a flight is on in the results. Alternatively, Google Flights or ITA Matrix can
show you. You don't always get to find out easily which variant of an aircraft
it is, e.g. a 757-200 vs. a 757-300 might both show as "757."

~~~
zeristor
So there’s a gap in the market if you want to be able to filter by aircraft.

I can imagine adding another dimension for searching flights could have an
impact on usability though.

~~~
kenneth
ITA Matrix is my favorite powerful flight search engine. It lets you filter by
aircraft, among many other things. You have to learn what essentially amounts
to a really obscure query language to use it effectively.

~~~
stefco_
Google Flights uses ITA Matrix tech (bought by Google a few years ago) and it
even gives you a link to buy tickets straight from the airline. Has pretty
much the same usability features of ITA Matrix and none of the cruft of Orbitz
et. al.; highly recommend it.

~~~
nhf
Some power user features of ITA aren't available on Google Flights still - for
example, it lets you construct specific weird routings or layovers that Google
will often optimize away. For instance, if you want a 24 hour layover in a
city, or if you want to fly a less efficient direction to your destination to
build mileage, or whatever.

You can use bookwithmatrix.com, though, which parses the output and will
generate a ticket for booking on an online travel agency like Expedia.

~~~
stefco_
Thanks for the recommendation! I hadn't heard of it bookwithmatrix.com.

------
audiometry
I am sure there will be all sorts of (correct) actuarial arguments that
driving my car to work is more deadly than flying in the v2 737, but I still
don't want to ever fly in a 737. It's got the mark of Cain at this point. I
doubt I'm the only one that feels that way.

~~~
333c
As I understand it, all 737s pre-MAX are fine; you want to avoid the MAX
planes because of MCAS and the new engine placement.

~~~
inferiorhuman
_As I understand it, all 737s pre-MAX are fine; you want to avoid the MAX
planes because of MCAS and the new engine placement._

Yeah, just don't pay too much attention to the structural problems that Boeing
is having with the 737 NG (cracked pickle forks). The inspection threshold
keeps getting lower and the scope of the inspections keeps growing.

~~~
iknowalot
What a branding disaster, tack on the name of reliable series of crafts to a
flying suicide machine and destroy the whole line.

I'm sure many customers will avoid 737s in general due to confusion.

~~~
dredmorbius
Branding is like leverage. There's a downside that goes with the upside.

------
_ph_
This article raises an interesting point in the 737 MAX discussions. Far too
much the press coverage about the MAX has concentrated on whether the MAX can
be made to fly safely - which I think it can be, but not, whether it is
actually the right design for the tasks it is meant to do. And it does not
surprise that stretching a smaller design wouldn't do the trick so well.

I am not an aviation expert, so the article was a bit short on details which
make the 757 better than the 737 MAX, but I assume it is the wider body and
probably better sized wings etc.?

~~~
stefco_
707, 727, 737, and 757 all have the exact same cross section. One of the
advantages of the 757 is that it sits higher off the ground and can
accommodate the large engines necessary for a longer fuselage. More generally,
757 is designed to be longer, with larger engines and wings, and higher fuel
capacity. 737 had to have these features bolted on as it was stretched, fitted
with higher bypass (more fuel efficient) engines, and given larger wings and
fuel capacity.

------
alkonaut
321LR will be very very successful if Boeing decides to scrap the 797 project.

------
ljosa
> What would it be like on the westbound leg, I wondered — a longer flight,
> from a shorter runway, in the face of winter headwinds?

Wouldn't colder (denser) air and a headwind make the plane require less
runway?

~~~
phumbe
The author isn’t worried about the takeoff speed in that quote; he’s thinking
about the increased duration of the flight as stiff winter headwinds (at
cruising altitude) decrease the aircraft’s groundspeed.

Prevailing surface wind direction doesn’t vary much with season.

------
jonstewart
I always like flying on a 757 because of the middle-ish door position. It
breaks up the interior and makes boarding and deplaning more pleasant.

I far prefer the MD-80/MD-90/717 to the 737. The rear mounted engines make
most seats (except the very back) far quieter and landings always seem
smoother. Obviously they’re a smaller plane than contemporary 737s, but it’s
still far more comfortable than the cramped conditions of the 737.

------
orlovs
Will not touch technical side of plane. I am not so proficient in this field,
but it’s one of the best looking passenger jet what humankind have designed.
Now only cseries/a220 have done it rigth

------
duckqlz
737 < 757! The argument holds!

------
FighterMafia
well, one's a narrowbody and the other a widebody with much higher PAX, so
didn't really thing this was a point that needed to be made...

~~~
selectodude
The 737 and 757 have identically sized fuselages. In fact, they are both
basically the same fuselage as the original 707.

------
bfrog
The 737 max is what happens when the bean counters are in control of an
engineering firm.

~~~
loeg
The bean counters will always be there. Alternatively, one can think of the
737 MAX (and prior new 737 models) as an example of regulation imposing
perverse incentives. (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_certificate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_certificate)
)

~~~
rob74
Interesting point, but what would be the alternative? Are you really
suggesting that pilots should be able to switch from e.g. the 737 to the A320
without any kind of additional training?

~~~
loeg
Type certificates are not about pilots; they're about airframes. Maybe skim
the link?

> A type certificate signifies the airworthiness of a particular category of
> aircraft, according to its manufacturing design (‘type’). It confirms that
> the aircraft is manufactured according to an approved design, and that the
> design ensures compliance with airworthiness requirements.

And to be clear, since it seems my comment was also not totally clear: I'm not
saying aircraft regulation / Type Certification is bad in general. Just that
this particular implementation currently has unintended perverse incentives
which lead to the 737 MAX.

~~~
diminoten
I'm generally blown away at the audacity people have to suggest casually
changing any FAA regulation, considering how good they are at their jobs...

~~~
loeg
I don't see how you parse that out of my comment without some extremely
uncharitable interpretation. I haven't suggested any particular change, nor
that any particular change be carried out "casually," without due
consideration.

~~~
diminoten
You were being uncharitable, why are you surprised it was interpreted that
way?

~~~
loeg
Do two wrongs make a right? Please keep an open mind going forward.

~~~
diminoten
Please don't tell me how to behave going forward, and if this is your way of
admitting you did something wrong, you've really got to work on that.

------
PaulHoule
Instead of building an NMA with a limited market, Boeing needs to build a 737
replacement.

------
nutcracker46
Smith is spot on with his analysis of why no number of mods and modules will
make the 737 into a 757.

Here on HN I have ranted about the wobbly bobbly handling, obsolete
hydraulics, and noisy crappy cockpit of the 73, versus the modern and
comfortable 75.

Pay attention to what the article says about takeoff and landing performance.
We used to load the 75 heavily for trips between NY La Guardia and Chicago
Midway, or Midway to Washington National. We could NOT load a 737-NG heavily
due to field length or climb limits. Boeing made a bad, bad decision to push
the 737 instead of advancing a fresh design.

Just wait and watch. They won't abandon the 737 until one or two more are lost
due to runway overruns or something else related to its shortcomings. That is
WITH better than average pilots, all the sooner to happen with typical ab
initio crews.

~~~
mjevans
I also like the intellectual idea of taking an older airframe (767-200) that
is suitable for the task and modernizing it once, rather than applying yet
another level of patches to something already pushed far outside of it's
intended design envelope.

~~~
Gravityloss
But why is it so hard to develop a new plane now, compared to patching an old
one? One would think computers could make a single engineer hugely more
effective nowadays than back then. Constraints, generative design, accurate
simulations. Additive manufacturing, CNC machines and composites can make
manufacturing a lot simpler too. Has it actually reduced any cost? Interest
rates are really low too.

Is it that new planes being developed have much stricter regulations? If so,
that's a problem, the incentives result in the public being less safe.

The A220 ran so much over budget that the whole program was sold to Airbus.
Yet it seems like a really good airplane from what I've read. 787 and A350
were also terribly expensive.

Something similar has happened with nuclear plants. They seem to take much
longer to do than way back and are so expensive to be barely profitable. A
friend commented that one reason is because top talent doesn't see the nuclear
industry as a "cool" thing or a viable career anymore.

There is one additional problem in airplanes and nukes. They are seen as
prestige projects by governments. This makes it hard to make regular money in
the industry as you always have subsidized competition.

~~~
rsynnott
It was always hard to develop a new plane. For all that the author waxes
rhapsodic about the 747's 2 year design to test flight, the 747 development
process very nearly killed Boeing (it brought Boeing far closer to the brink
than the a380 did for Airbus).

~~~
Gravityloss
That's true! This book, "The Jetmakers" is available online and it talks about
these things, but in the 1945 to 1972 time frame. It is a good read.

[http://www.generalatomic.com/jetmakers/index.html](http://www.generalatomic.com/jetmakers/index.html)

