Was ending the 757 program a mistake for Boeing?

[The guy in 2a]

Given the U.S. airline interest in the A321, I was wondering what Boeing has to compete.
 
It used to be that the 757 killed the A321 because of its transcon-U.S. range and, later, because it also happened out to work for many intercontinental routes (transatlantic and North-South America).  
 
Does the 737-900 not cut it as a replacement?  Did Boeing ever consider new engines or wings for the 757?
 
It seems like Boeing walked away from a significant passenger capacity + range + efficiency sweet spot that airlines used to love, and are now rediscovering.

 

[USFlyer]

Neither the A321 nor the 739 "replace" how many US airlines are now using the 757 -- that is, for thin transcon routes to Europe.  This is still a hole that neither manufacturer has addressed effectively.

 

[Jester]

The B757 was just too much plane for most domestic operational needs.  It would be akin to delivering pizzas in a Corvette.  It wasn't until near the end of its production life cycle that airlines began to see the B757's use in the longer, thinner routes from the US east coast to western edge of Europe, and Hawaii from the US west coast, and maybe the hot and high take-offs.  Otherwise the advanced A320 and B737 series were able to add seats and improve engine efficiency for most domestic operations, for which the B757s were the sole operation of the only narrow body which could handle the mission on a true transcon flight without a weight penalty.
 
Consider this... every legacy US based airline at one time or another operated the B757.... AA, UA, NW, DL, CO, US, and AW.  However, relatively few major European based airlines had the B757 in their fleet... British Airways, Aer Lingus, Finnair, and maybe i am missing someone?  Pretty much the same situation for most of Asia too.  The aircraft fit a certain niche to the US market which was never really an issue in Europe or Asia.
 
It is an aircraft with 30 year old technology with a range and passenger count niche for which there are limited applications against more modern narrow bodied fleets.  While it is quite possible for Airbus and Boeing to make a true replacement, but there are far more pressing needs versus an aircraft with a very limited market.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Much of that had to with increased engine reliability and the advent of ETOPS.

 

[yoyodyne]

The B757 was just too much plane for most domestic operational needs.  It would be akin to delivering pizzas in a Corvette.  It wasn't until near the end of its production life cycle that airlines began to see the B757's use in the longer, thinner routes from the US east coast to western edge of Europe, and Hawaii from the US west coast, and maybe the hot and high take-offs.  Otherwise the advanced A320 and B737 series were able to add seats and improve engine efficiency for most domestic operations, for which the B757s were the sole operation of the only narrow body which could handle the mission on a true transcon flight without a weight penalty.
 
Consider this... every legacy US based airline at one time or another operated the B757.... AA, UA, NW, DL, CO, US, and AW.  However, relatively few major European based airlines had the B757 in their fleet... British Airways, Aer Lingus, Finnair, and maybe i am missing someone?  Pretty much the same situation for most of Asia too.  The aircraft fit a certain niche to the US market which was never really an issue in Europe or Asia.
 
It is an aircraft with 30 year old technology with a range and passenger count niche for which there are limited applications against more modern narrow bodied fleets.  While it is quite possible for Airbus and Boeing to make a true replacement, but there are far more pressing needs versus an aircraft with a very limited market.

 
If I had the money, I would deliver pizzas in a Bugatti Veyron!!
And I bet I would have lots of happy costumers.

 

[traderjake]

Neither the A321 nor the 739 "replace" how many US airlines are now using the 757 -- that is, for thin transcon routes to Europe.  This is still a hole that neither manufacturer has addressed effectively.

 
If you want to torture yourself sit in the middle seat of the last row of a 757 (or 737) for 5 hours.
 
The Airbus cabin is much better.

 

[777 fixer]

Neither the A321 nor the 739 "replace" how many US airlines are now using the 757 -- that is, for thin transcon routes to Europe.  This is still a hole that neither manufacturer has addressed effectively.

 
Considering how wrapped up both manufacturers are in current projects and the amount of money dumped into planes like the A380 and 787 I doubt they will. 

 

[nycbusdriver]

 
...It used to be that the 757 killed the A321 because of its transcon-U.S. range ...

 
I don't think it can be said that the "757 killed the A321" for two reasons.
 
I believe the 757 assembly line closed down before the first A321 ever flew.
 
The A321 was never designed to approach the performance of the 757 except for passenger seat numbers.  I don't think Airbus ever claimed that the A321 was in direct competition with the 757 due to the radical difference in performance and range.
 
The 757 has the capability of hauling way more cargo payload and fuel, while filling every seat and climbing to comfortable altitudes above much of any weather.  On the other hand, it's a stretch to send a fully loaded A321 coast-to-coast, and it makes the pilots' job interesting if there are any frontal weather encounters.  Fully loaded, the A321 can't get much above 28, or 29,000 feet until it burns a good portion of the fuel load necessary to get it to the opposite coast (especially westbound.)
 
That being said, from a pax comfort standpoint, the A321 is head-and-shoulder above the 757.  The cabin is wider, so the seats are wider.  That makes a huge difference on a 5+ hour transcon.  (The pax are oblivious to the fact that the pilots are busily dodging thunderstorms while the 757 cruises smoothly 10,000 feet above them!)
 
For the pilots, the Airbuses are, in general, much more comfortable than the Boeings (at least those Boeings flown now and in the past by US Airways.)  But, as a pilot, I must say that the 757 is virtually ummatched among airliners in performance.  I didn't care to fly the 757 on a day-to-day basis because it handled like a Mack Truck, and the systems were the arcane result of engineering-by-committee.  BUT, if I had my choice of airplanes to be flying when an engine quit at the critical moment on takeoff, the airplane I would want to have under my seat is without a doubt the 757.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Great write up there NYCBD. The 757 is/was (in my case) a mechanic favorite too.

"Skinny legs, big tits" as we affectionately referred to them.

 

[delldude]

 
If you want to torture yourself sit in the middle seat of the last row of a 757 (or 737) for 5 hours.
 
The Airbus cabin is much better.

 
Red eye from LAX to PIT and turbulence every inch of the way...

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

SFO-DTW redeye In a -300 smelling a nasty lav and watching the center aisle flex.

 

[delldude]

SFO-DTW redeye In a -300 smelling a nasty lav and watching the center aisle flex.

 
As Lead Mech, help two guys pull out aft lavs then watch them eat lunch in the same area w/o washing hands.

 

[777 fixer]

I believe the 757 assembly line closed down before the first A321 ever flew.
 

 
The 757 line shutdown in 2005.  The A321 had been in service eleven years by that point.

 

[777 fixer]

 BUT, if I had my choice of airplanes to be flying when an engine quit at the critical moment on takeoff, the airplane I would want to have under my seat is without a doubt the 757.

 
Anyone, pilot or passenger, who has flown out of airports like SNA appreciates the power the 757 has.  Especially if it has RB211 attached to the wings.

 

[delldude]

 
Anyone, pilot or passenger, who has flown out of airports like SNA appreciates the power the 757 has.  Especially if it has RB211 attached to the wings.

 
Saw a few cowboys do max angle climb.....was cool as hell.....you're figuring he's gonna stall it but never happens.