the Boeing 757 new generation (?)

[Felipe Garcia]

And why there isn't anybody covering this niche? Isn't there a market for it?
There was one for the 757 (and for its predecessor, the 727)

I don't know if there is one, as I have a feeling that unless the route demands smaller planes, it's much more economical to use a 767 or a 787. It seems like even for domestic use you can replace them with widebodies (Transcons) or A321/739ER (shorter flights).

Regarding the 757SF with winglets, I've heard two versions, one is that no one has an STC for it, therefore any kind of conversion with winglets is not certfied, and that for cargo ops / the way FedEx flies them they make no sense.

[snydersnapshots]

In my opinion, two of the dumbest decisions Boeing made were stopping production of the 757 and outsourcing the major components of the 787.

The 757 is a fantastic airplane--the -200 has plenty of power (at least the airplanes with the RB-211's. I don't have any experience with the Pratts. Yet.). It carries a good load of people and cargo, can go a long distance, and can get up to the mid- to high- 30's right away. The -300 doesn't have quite the performance that the -200 does, with regard to climb or altitude capability (we generally have to burn off fuel to make FL350 or above if we're heavy), but it's a fantastic airplane too. The accountants love it--it's extremely efficient.

That being said, I think Boeing's thought process was that the 737-900ER was going to be the replacement for the 757 in terms of range. The problem is the 737 doesn't have the performance of the 757 or the cargo capacity.

[IberiaMD-87]

The 757 is a fantastic airplane--the -200 has plenty of power (at least the airplanes with the RB-211's. I don't have any experience with the Pratts. Yet.). It carries a good load of people and cargo, can go a long distance, and can get up to the mid- to high- 30's right away.

I think that the European view is that the 757īs very high performance was no longer needed and this resulted in retirements of this type by well-known operators. For example Iberia replaced their Boeing 757s with Airbus A321s. The A321 is a little bit smaller but far more economical to operate on traditional shorter routes and it made more sense to streamline Iberiaīs fleet to the A320-family. The 757 would offer simply too much performance for flights from Madrid to Barcelona or Madrid to Las Palmas.

The 757-200 really showed her ability to operate very short and rather long flights as a very flexible aircraft but demand was weak at the end.

The -300 doesn't have quite the performance that the -200 does, with regard to climb or altitude capability (we generally have to burn off fuel to make FL350 or above if we're heavy), but it's a fantastic airplane too. The accountants love it--it's extremely efficient.

Yes. The 757-300 is able to produce extremely attractive costs on a per-seat-basis. On the other hand the flexibility of this variant is not that high. Lufthansa tested the 757-300 (leased from Condor) and the results were not that good. If I remember correctly Lufthansa looked at the 757-300 as a potential replacement for their Airbus A300-600s. Passenger-reaction (who were familiar with the A300 on domestic legs) were not amused about the 757-300. Sadly the 757-300 never got additional orders based on the huge base of existing 757-200-operators.

I donīt see that a new 757 would make sense. The 757 had its share of high success in many parts of the world.

Bye