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.
Would you being willing to elaborate on what makes it special to you? I'd love to know more!
Years ago I worked at Ames on the ACES system (minor but fixes and a Greenfield projects involving data/flight path visualization), but I felt the airplanes themeselves were these magical black boxes. I'd would appreciate having a deeper understanding about how they differentiate from one another in a non-superfical sense.
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.
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.
> The 737-MAX is the plane equivalent of Windows XP Service Pack 8.
If I have an important device that I'm not attaching to a network, that sounds like a good thing. It may not have every feature but it's very stable and efficient.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's too much plane for most use cases — too heavy and too thirsty.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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."
I haven't seen a search filter for that but you could manually check the probable aircraft on SeatGuru once you find out the flight number from the airline's website.
Airlines shuffle planes constantly to deal with changes in demand, maintenance, etc.
Even if you knew what plane they're planning on flying when you bought the ticket, the plane that rolls onto the gate might still end up being a different one.
Google Flights (and click through to the carrier’s site) has been pretty accurate for me. Only one time VA swapped a B787 for an A340 on my flight from LHR to JFK.
I asked the attendant and they explained that they were having some issues with the B787.
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.
Planes are so ungodly safe that two crashes of the same model within a year of each other is an unprecedented scandal that would bankrupt the company were it not for it being a national strategic asset. We could only dream of road safety being held to such a standard. Flying is so much safer than driving it’s a marvel that anyone steps foot in a car at all... fun fact, flying is even safer than trains by a factor of four (!!), but I have friends who refuse to fly at all because of the possibility of their plane crashing and instead drive across the country to travel.
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.?
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.
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.
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
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 )
It's what happens when customer desires override engineering sense, it's worse when bean counters are in the loop, but the problem still exists without them present.
Designing a small collection of different aircraft, each specialised to a particular role, can produce a complementary fleet with capabilities a modern air force needs. But doing so comes with the overhead of producing lots of different aircraft.
Instead, "the spreadsheet" shows that designing one aircraft capable of lots of things comes with the lowest overheads -- but with all the disadvantages of an overcomplicated aircraft and only average performance in each trait.
Would you also say that about the 787, 747-8, EA-18G Growler, T-7 Red Hawk, MQ-25 Stingray, and GPS Block IIF? All of those were developed in the time after the MD merger.
I agree Boeing isn't the engineering company it used to be, in many ways, but I don't think it's as simple as "controlled by bean-counters".
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.
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.
[+] [-] WalterBright|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soganess|6 years ago|reply
Years ago I worked at Ames on the ACES system (minor but fixes and a Greenfield projects involving data/flight path visualization), but I felt the airplanes themeselves were these magical black boxes. I'd would appreciate having a deeper understanding about how they differentiate from one another in a non-superfical sense.
[+] [-] jrockway|6 years ago|reply
That's refreshing. I have a friend who worked on the A380 and she says she'll never set foot on one.
[+] [-] munmaek|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ianhawes|6 years ago|reply
> 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|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anticensor|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dylan16807|6 years ago|reply
If I have an important device that I'm not attaching to a network, that sounds like a good thing. It may not have every feature but it's very stable and efficient.
[+] [-] Nokinside|6 years ago|reply
> 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|6 years ago|reply
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|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] cyberferret|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] inferiorhuman|6 years ago|reply
It's too much plane for most use cases — too heavy and too thirsty.
[+] [-] vanniv|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] tus88|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|6 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919
[+] [-] peteretep|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] xadhominemx|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeristor|6 years ago|reply
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|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sleavey|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rwmj|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nikanj|6 years ago|reply
Even if you knew what plane they're planning on flying when you bought the ticket, the plane that rolls onto the gate might still end up being a different one.
[+] [-] frutiger|6 years ago|reply
I asked the attendant and they explained that they were having some issues with the B787.
[+] [-] audiometry|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 333c|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jquery|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vanniv|6 years ago|reply
The 737-700/800/900 you've been flying the last decade or two was already v2 (and a very successful v2)
[+] [-] _ph_|6 years ago|reply
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_|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alkonaut|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ljosa|6 years ago|reply
Wouldn't colder (denser) air and a headwind make the plane require less runway?
[+] [-] jonstewart|6 years ago|reply
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|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duckqlz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FighterMafia|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] selectodude|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bfrog|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] loeg|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aloha|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jackweirdy|6 years ago|reply
Designing a small collection of different aircraft, each specialised to a particular role, can produce a complementary fleet with capabilities a modern air force needs. But doing so comes with the overhead of producing lots of different aircraft.
Instead, "the spreadsheet" shows that designing one aircraft capable of lots of things comes with the lowest overheads -- but with all the disadvantages of an overcomplicated aircraft and only average performance in each trait.
[+] [-] ken|6 years ago|reply
I agree Boeing isn't the engineering company it used to be, in many ways, but I don't think it's as simple as "controlled by bean-counters".
[+] [-] PopeDotNinja|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PaulHoule|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nutcracker46|6 years ago|reply
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|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnmorrow|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smacktoward|6 years ago|reply