Boeing has announced that production of the Boeing 757 will stop at the end of 2004, due to a lack of orders. (Or, as the Boeing press release euphemistically puts it, Boeing is to "complete production" of the 757).
The 757 is the largest narrow body passenger jet ever built. ("Narrow body is normally defined as "having a single aisle" with two or three passengers on each side of the aisle, and normally five or six passengers abreast in total. "Wide body" means having two aisles, and anything from seven to ten passengers across in total). The 757 was always a niche product rather than a mainstream product, and the story behind it is quite interesting.
In the 1970s, Boeing had three narrow body jet airliners on sale. The 707 was an aging 1950s long haul design for international routes, the 727 was a three engined domestic jet that seated about 150, and the 737 was a slightly smaller two engined aircraft that seated 100-130. By the mid 1970s, it was clear that two engined jets were the way of the future for all but the largest aircraft, and the 727 was phased out. Civil variants of the 707 were also phased out, although Boeing continued producing the aircraft for the US Air Force (mainly as an AWACS aircraft) until 1991.
In any event, Boeing introduced two new aircraft in the late 1970s to replace the 707 and 727. These were the 767 and 757. The 767 was the second widebody jet built by Boeing, after the 747. The 747 was a great achievement when it went into service in 1970, but it was far too big for many international routes. (It was allegedly as big as it was as much because of a deal done between Boeing boss Bill Allen and Pan Am boss Juan Trippe in the mid 1960s, both of who wanted to do something really impressive before retirement). Some of the market for 707s had been taken by 747s, but Boeing needed a smaller aircraft to offer for smaller routes (and to compete with the A300 being built by the new Airbus consortium), and the 767 fit the bill. The 767 became very popular for transatlantic routes, longer and busier domestic routes in the US, and for many of the less busy routes in Asia.
The 757 was intended to replace the 727, but for some reason Boeing got its market research wrong. Rather than building a 150 seat replacement for the 150 seat 727, Boeing made the 757 a 200 seater. As it happened, most of the airlines that were replacing their 727s didn't want a 200 seater, but wanted a 150 seater. Boeing did not immediately have one available, and this provided a market opening that was ultimately taken up by Airbus, who built the A320, and by McDonnell Douglas, who built a stretched version of the DC-9 called the MD-80. This was the market opening that allowed Airbus to move from a niche player in the airliner world to being clear number two in the 1990s, and to perhaps even be number one today. Boeing eventually filled this gap with a new 150 seat version of the 737, but a few years later.
Although it missed its intended market, the 757 was not a failure. This was largely because the engineers did a really good job, and the aircraft ended up having much longer range than it would have needed for the 727 replacement role. (On a British note, part of the reason for this is that the engine that Rolls-Royce designed for the 757, the RB211-535, turned out to be a superb piece of engineering). The aircraft also managed great fuel economy, although it was not especially comfortable for passengers. The aircraft also has perhaps the best safety record of any modern airliner, and does very well in "hot and high" conditions, where air conditions at the airport make landing tricky due to altitude or climate. It became extremely popular for European charter operators for both European and trans-Atlantic routes, and also very popular for US airlines operating coast to coast. This was a successful market niche, although not nearly as big a niche as would have been a genuine 727 replacement.
Today, the European charter business is becoming less important due to the rise of the discount airlines, which prefer smaller aircraft, Boeing 737s and Airbus A320s. Boeing has stretched the 737 even further, and the longest version, the 737-900, can hold up to 180 passengers anyway, which is close to the capacity of a 757. More modern materials and more efficient engines mean that the range of the latest 737 variants is much longer than the older variants, so the 757 no longer really wins on this score either. Unsurprisingly, many airlines have decided to operate a mixture of different 737 types rather than a mixture of 737s and 757s. And, on top of that, the market for new airliners has dried up in the post September 11 world. (And, very sadly, two of the hijacked aircraft, AA Flight 77, which was flown into the Pentagon, and UA Flight 93, which crashed in Somerset County Pensylvania after passengers heroically attempted to take the plane back from the hijackers, were 757s).
Thus 757 production will be no more. The lower end of the market will be taken by the large 737s (or the Airbus A321) and the higher end will be taken by the new technology Boeing 7E7, which is on the drawing board and which will probably be renamed the 787 if it goes into production, which is looking close to certain. Boeing also intends that the 7E7 will replace the civilian 767. The 767 production line is safe for the moment, as the type has replaced the 707 as the US Air Force's favourite plane for assorted military utility jobs. There is an AWACS variant of that one in service, and the USAF is also expected to order around 100 soon to be used as tankers. As long as the production line is open, the aircraft will no doubt still be offered to civilian customers. And there are also freighter versions. (Production lines can often be kept open for a long time for these sorts of purposes. The Airbus A300 first flew in 1969, and there have been essentially zero passenger versions sold in the last decade. As a freight aircraft, the plane continues to sell and sell, however. Narrow body types don't seem to work so well as freighters, and the production lines seem to close once the passenger market dries up).
In any event, it will be sad to see 757 production close, as the aircraft is one of the few that has a really distinct look in this day and age of aircraft that all look the same. The aircraft, with its long, narrow fuselage, and its big wing with two fat engines underneath has long been affectionately nicknamed the "praying mantis".
Of course, we will see them around the airports of the world for decades yet.
Boeing ending production of the 757
I’m not a huge aviation buff, but growing up around the Air Force it’s hard not to at least have some passing interest in the...
Signifying Nothing on October 22, 2003
A Choice Buffet
TransportBlog has an informative post on the completion of the Boeing 757. [Link via Signifying Nothing] Also at Signifying Nothing, Chris Lawrence hits the mark squarely in his assessment of the various Star Trek series. I haven't watched ...
Signal + Noise on October 23, 2003
Comments
The 757 is also used by various Air Forces around the world (often for VIP and general transport). One reason that the RNZAF got two (second-hand)was because they have the range and short-field performance to cart around the leaders of small Pacific Island countries. Another reason was that they were expected to be in civilian service for some time, making maintenance cheaper (see USAF issues with C-135s now B707s are rare).
Posted by Errol Cavit on October 22, 2003This is an interesting commentary, but it is wrong when it asserts that the 757 had too great a seat capacity, leaving a gap in the approx 150 seat sized plane part of the market which Airbus moved to exploit.
Consider these facts and dates :
(a) The 727-200 had a seat capacity of 189-200 in an all coach configuration, not 150 as this writer claims.
(b) The 727-200 ceased manufacture in 1984.
(c) The 757-200 had a seat capacity of 214-239 in an all coach configuration, and first flew commercially on 1 Jan, 1983.
(d) Filling the 150 seater 'gap' was the 737-300, which had a capacity of 149 seats, and which first flew commercially in Dec 1984.
(e) Airbus' first plane of similar size was the A320, holding 164-179 pax in one class, and this did not deploy into commercial service until 1988.
(f) Within a few months of the A320 starting commercial service, so too did the B737-400, with a capacity of 168 seats.
There was no gap at any time, and during this period Airbus never had a plane configuration that wasn't matched by Boeing at the same time (or earlier).
Note that I'm not saying this to defend Boeing - I am, in fact, quite a strident critic of Boeing as my present four part series on the company and its troubles will testify to (see www.TheTravelInsider.Info/2003/boeing1.htm). But I do think the record here needs to be corrected.
David.
Posted by David Rowell on December 18, 2003Permalink
Yes, sad to see the end of the "stick insect". It seems to have been operating the Scotland to London shuttle forever. One of its advantages was a nearly identical cockpit to that of the 767 thus saving on crew training costs. This is something that Airbus has taken up in a big way.
Posted by David Farrer on October 22, 2003