Boeing’s blunder with the 757 – and what it could mean for their next plane

Boeing has been making headlines a lot recently. With the controversies surrounding
the 737 MAX program and the launch of the new 777X, it’s an interesting time for American
aviation. But increasingly, airlines aren’t thinking about what Boeing is doing now. They’re
thinking about something that happened in 2004.
If you’ve ever flown coast-to-coast in the US there’s a decent chance it was on a 757.
This nearly 40-year-old plane is one of the most versatile and popular in the industry.
Though most 757s are pushing the limits of their lifespans, airlines continue to repair and
upgrade them. While other aircraft from that era are being phased out, the 757 is still one of
the most popular in the world.
To understand this, we need to look at the design of the plane itself. With powerful
engines and a highly efficient wing, the 757 can take off and land on shorter runways than its
competitors, and at higher altitudes. This lets the plane service smaller airports than other
aircraft with the same range. And this is what the 757 was made for. It just didn’t know it in
time.
When the 757 was designed in the 1970s, airlines used an entirely different system
for routing their flights. Called the hub-and-spoke model, airlines would funnel passengers
into large airports to use a few high-demand routes.
For example, say you want to fly between Seattle and Reykjavik, Iceland. At the time,
a set of rules called ETOPS – guidelines for how far twin-engine planes can be from an
airport – prevented many small planes from flying routes over the atlantic or sparsely-
populated regions. While demand between a Seattle to Reykjavik flight existed, it wasn’t
great enough to make using a larger, ETOPS-compliant plane profitable.
Instead, airlines would route passengers from across the country to a hub airport
such as New York or Washington DC. Then, they would fly a single flight to Reykjavik on a
large aircraft such as the airbus A330. While this system cuts down on the number of flights
needed, and keeps airplanes full, it isn’t economically more efficient due to the unique costs
of the airline industry.
By the time the 757 entered the market, ETOPS rules had been changed to allow it
to fly these transatlantic flights. This meant the 757 could easily fly from Seattle to Reykjavik,
and was small enough to match the route’s demand. But airlines didn’t yet know how to
operate these routes, making them unproffitable.
Airlines did buy hundreds of 757s, but used them for high-demand routes within the
continental US. By the early 2000s, sales of the 757 had largely dried up and in 2004,
Boeing stopped production.
Now, things have changed. Airlines are increasingly adopting the point-to-point
model of aviation, made possible by more reliable engines and relaxed ETOPS rules.
Airlines have found a way to make long-haul flights between small cities profitable. They just
don’t have the right plane for it.
The 757 is getting old. Maintenance and upgrades can keep them flying for now, but
most airlines are expecting to phase them out in the next few years. This leaves a major gap
in the market other planes are trying to fill.
Launched in 2011, Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner is able to fill some of the higher demand
routes in the market, and has the range and performance to match it. But it’s too large to fit
many of the highly profitable niche routes the 757 excels at.

On the other hand, Boeing has recently been marketing the 737 MAX 10 as a 757
replacement. While it has the low capacity needed for the market, its range and engine
performance mean transatlantic and coast-to-coast routes are a stretch. Also, with the
controversy surrounding the MAX, airlines are far from enthusiastic about its future.
Airbus has also put forward their new A321XLR. Set to launch in the next two years,
this plane has a longer range than the 757 under standard configuration. But with more
seats added, the range drops significantly. This lack of versatility has made many airlines
hesitant to accept it as a worthy 757 replacement. Nonetheless, United and American have
both placed orders.
With Airbus gaining ground in this section of the market, Boeing knows it has to do
something.
Some have suggested upgrading the 757 with new engines and re-starting
production like Boeing did with the 777X. However, this would require a massive upfront
investment. Engineers believe a re-engined 757 would need new wings along with flight
control systems. Furthermore, re-establishing a supply chain, training workers, and
negotiating with the third-party companies that supplied parts to the 757 would be time
consuming and expensive.
This essentially leaves Boeing with two options. The first is their NMA, or “New
Midsize Aircraft.” This plane, likely to be dubbed the 797, has been talked about since 2015,
receiving significant interest from airlines. Like a re-engined 757, the NMA would require an
all-new supply chain and large up-front investment. But, with an all-new airframe, the plane
would be more future-proofed and efficient.
However, in January of this year Boeing CEO, David Calhoun, announced the
company would scrap all previous plans for the NMA and start with a clean sheet of paper.
Their disaster 737 MAX has made launching an entirely new aircraft too much of a financial
risk for now. Instead, Boeing has stated they’ll be focusing on their current products.
Another option is to re-engine the 767, a wide-body variant of the 757 occupying a
similar part of the market.
This has been the subject of many rumors throughout the aviation world. While
Boeing has acknowledged they’re looking into it, there haven’t been any concrete
announcements. Slated to be called the 767-X, it would be based off the current 767-400ER,
still in production.
Updating an aircraft currently in production would save massive costs for Boeing.
With a supply chain already set up, and pilots and maintenance workers trained, the plane
could be designed and brought to market far sooner than the NMA.
Yet, while cheaper, this plane wouldn’t be the perfect 757 replacement airlines want.
Like the 787, it’s just too large.
In the end, whether airlines want to wait a decade for a plane that fits their order, or
accept a decent alternative in a few years, is left to be seen. With COVID-19 crippling the
industry and Boeing in no position for a gamble, what will replace the 757 is up for
wondering.