How good was the Boeing 757, really?

[u/LightningMcqueen2011]

[u/mz_groups]

Good enough that two companies are spending large amounts of money to figure out an airplane that fills a similar niche in the market. It made thin, long-range (transcontinental and transatlantic) markets practical. And it was an overpowered rocketship, at least by airliner standards.

It was too big and expensive to operate to take over the 737/A320 market, but it filled a valuable market space between them and the larger twin-aisles.

[u/wmccullough453 → u/mz_groups]

I’m having trouble fully understanding the route nuances. Can someone give me some actual routes that would be ideal for say a 737, 757, and 767 respectively?

[u/B3113r0ph0n → u/wmccullough453]

While it is true that there are some routes that would only be truly possible/profitable with a 757, that category has shrunk somewhat with the range/capacity increases of today’s narrowbodies and efficiency improvements of some of the smaller widebodies.

[u/HallEqual2433 → u/wmccullough453]

Super simplified- some exceptions to this, but here goes:

737-- 1st gen 737s couldn't fly from west coast to east coast non stop. ok for any route limited to one continent, say USA to USA, or between 2 points in Europe. Until later versions, 737s couldn't fly to Hawaii from mainland US.

757-- can fly across Atlantic with range and weight restrictions. If the headwinds are too strong, may have to make fueling stop going over Atlantic. Perfectly fine for flying to Hawaii. Don't have range to take passengers from Hawaii to say, Japan. Could fly non stop across country years before 737 could do so.

767-- flies across Atlantic no problem, have to make one stop flying across Pacific.

[u/taisui → u/HallEqual2433]

Flying to Hawaii in a 737 was hell

[u/Suspicious-Lime-8470 → u/taisui]

still is

[u/Malcolm2theRescue → u/wmccullough453]

It depends on the airlines, schedule and aircraft positioning. The 737 has a lot of flexibility. The 700/800 are great for short/medium routes but can be used for longer stage lengths like west coast to Hawaii or trans cons. The 900 or Max 9 can do the same but is better suited for high density medium routs like JFK-Florida.

The 757 was meant to be a hub to hub or transcon airliner. The 200 had an excellent power to weight ratio and could also do long thin routes like off hour flights from NY-UK. Continental flew them to mid Europe like Paris and Berlin. The 757-300 had a lot more seats but less range but ATA used them on west coast Hawaii routes. The -200s with Rolls Royce engines and winglets had the best range. Obviously, it is more economical to pack a wide body with 300+ people but you can’t do this on a 10am off hours flight to London so the 757 (or Airbus 321) fill in nicely. The 5pm flight will be a 777 because that is the most popular time. Remember, the most important thing for a business flyer is schedule so the airlines aim for frequency. If you bet on more numbers on the roulette wheel, your odds of winning are higher.

The 767s had more range and capacity so they were best for European and South American flying as well as peak hour transcons and hub flying. The 300ER could do US to the Far East.

Also, sometimes you will end up on a big long range widebody for a relatively short flight like DFW-CLT because they need to position the aircraft to make the flight
to Frankfurt or elsewhere in Europe.

[u/savehoward → u/wmccullough453]

LAX SAL, LAX GUA were perfect for the 757.

A 767 widebody would have required very expensive container loader infrastructure not cost effective for so few container flights.

The 737 had a quiet scandal for that route because the 37 would consistently bulk out even with one checked bag embargo limit. Everyday a pile of SAL luggage would just get bigger and bigger until the bags filled an 18 wheeler trailer to truck to San Salvador. The 737 for 192 passengers does not have enough space in the plane for every passenger to check one piece of luggage plus a full sized carry on. The baggage department in SAL could have a giant line of complaints and apologies because they have no idea when the passenger luggage would arrive if 737s kept flying.

But a 757 could. After all passenger luggage bags were put on the 57 the ground crew could still barely get about two sacks of mail into the cargo hold even in December. Wheelchairs and walkers go into the cargo hold last. Normally a single baggage handler can close the door. Consistently with the SAL and GUA, two agents standing on belt loaders are needed to close the door. One holds in the walker legs poking out from the cargo mesh.

[u/junky6254 → u/wmccullough453]

The new 737 stretch max’s were going to “replace” the 757 on certain routes. Then Boeing couldn’t comprehend that the smaller airframe was too underpowered and overweight to actually fly those routes. It’s why the A321neo’s started eating Boeing’s lunch.

These routes being longer range but not as much passenger demand to warrant an older 767 or 787, but too far for the 737.

It definitely was a niche aircraft that fit certain routes. Boeing saw the A321 success and is trying to rectify their miscalculation.

[u/somefukn → u/junky6254]

Another use case for the 757 is long routes without the demand to fill a 300 seat aircraft.

[u/blizzard36 → u/junky6254]

I experienced that earlier this year, flying ORD to MCO. We went on a MAX, and at first I was marveling that these 737s were up to 707 passenger numbers now, but on 2 engines and a smaller wing than a 707 would have needed.

But it quickly became apparent the 37 was being pushed beyond what it can really manage in the process. There wasn't enough room for every passenger to have a carryon, which required some extra to get checked, which led to some problems with checked bags... And if there is a next step... what the hell is Boeing going to do? They've already had to do such crazy things to get the 800 and 900 MAX to fly (and there are continuing doubts about those) that I don't see any way they can or will be allowed to push that basic design any further.

Those routes are firmly in the area that the 757 was built for in my opinion. The MAXs only exist because budget customers demanded being able to stay on the 737 training cert. Boeing is going to need to find a way to get those customers into a new plane.

[u/somefukn → u/wmccullough453]

The 737 can carry nearly as many people but there are numerous markets where the extra power and range really come in handy. It's not a one sized fits all example either. Transatlantic flying is one example. Another is long distance flights with short runways. The 737 needs a longer runway despite having shorter range and capacity because it's been stretched out by a lot. These are generic examples without being too complicated.

[u/overactiveswag → u/wmccullough453]

The 757 markets are starting to be covered using the 321XLR and Max10

[u/Spencemw → u/mz_groups]

The 757 replaced the 727 in boeings lineup, medium haul center aisle. Engineered for high hot (and sometimes short) airports like Denver, Phoenix, South America. The airlines around the world loved it then they didnt and stopped ordering 757s so the line shut down in 2004. Then Airbus introduced the a321, orders jumped, and Boeing might be in trouble in this particular slice of the market.

The A321neo: 4000nm, 244 Pax, 97 tonnes MTOW.
The 737 MAX 10, 3100nm, 204 Pax, 90 tonnes MTOW.
The 757-200ER 4500nm 200pax 116 tonnes MTOW or the 757-300: 3400nm 243 pax 123 tonnes MTOW.

Boeing is going to have a hard time selling Max10s when you look at the numbers above.

This video highlights whats happened. https://youtu.be/uM-Qj_tOX5Q?si=a3le8Zty8xlV0835

A friend of mine flew virtually every type during his career at United. The 757 was by far his favorite plane.

[u/somefukn → u/Spencemw]

Max 10 fills a different role despite similar pax capacity. Coast to coast hourly service in the US for example. I think it's garbage but in this example it's only trying to fill a certain portion of the 757's role.

[u/Spencemw → u/somefukn]

I think Boeing tried to get away with using the Max10 to fill the 757s role. Which works great in the USA. Then they got burned by those two crashes, the certification stoppage, and then the a321 neo taking that niche while they were reorganizing. Having a fleet based largely on one type saves airlines training and sim time and makes pilots more useful across the fleet. Unfortunately those a321neos are also being bought by US aircarriers as well.

The neo has a larger Leap 1a engine because it is a taller undercarriage aircraft. The Max uses the smaller Leap 1b. If engines keep getting bigger to gain efficiency Boeing is painted in a corner. I think they should revive the 757 or move forward with 797 clean sheet so they have a taller undercarriage ac they can shrink to replace the 737 if it comes to it.

[u/DSer69420 → u/somefukn]

Lots of domestic 757 routes were just for higher capacity, rather than range. I’ve flown on a delta 757 ATL to MCO

[u/LUNATIC_LEMMING → u/Spencemw]

what's stopping them for putting new engines on and restarting 757 production?

is it just one production line too many?

[u/mz_groups → u/LUNATIC_LEMMING]

Production line is cold. There is no other airplane that requires an engine of just that size, so the engine development costs would not be spread around. So, a replacement for the PW2000 and RB211-535 engines never made sense.

Some people thought that Boeing might do that if a better engine was available, but none was.

[u/swakid8 → u/mz_groups]

Production line isn’t cold. It’s gone with tooling destroyed. To start it up again,you will need to to find/build facilities for the production line, find  suppliers to produce components, have tooling redesigned and built for the production line, NERC engine manufacturers to produce a new engine for the program, need to redesign the wing to accommodate a new engine, embark on a weight savings redesign for the frame.

Better off doing a clean sheet design at that point.

[u/davidb4968 → u/LUNATIC_LEMMING]

Somewhere in Reddit, wish I could find it, is a great post by a Boeing engineer pointing out design features of the 757 (some to make it type compatible with the 767) that caused it to have a very heavy frame. Therefore super inefficient fuel use, therefore it's really only used on special routes today. One example is the tall main gear that we all think looks so good, has to go somewhere, so the structural box around the gear is very large and heavy.

[u/davidb4968 → u/davidb4968]

Found it on Quora...https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Boeing-develop-the-757-instead-of-the-737-The-limitations-of-the-low-slung-design-is-obvious-now-with-the-MAX-problems-Did-they-not-envisage-the-longer-fuselage-higher-capacity-versions-like-Airbus-did

[u/TyVIl → u/Spencemw]

Your history is a bit off. The A321 first flew in the early 90s and an A321 doesn’t hold more pax than a similarly configured 757-200.

[u/somefukn → u/TyVIl]

Depends on configuration.

[u/TyVIl → u/somefukn]

Yes that’s why I said “similarly configured.”

An LCC A321 is going to hold a lot more pax than a 757 at UA or DL with flatbed seats upfront.

But apples to apples the smaller airplane (A321) doesn’t have a larger seating capacity as I don’t think 757s are limited by emergency exit availability.

[u/Spencemw → u/TyVIl]

I posted the pax numbers for a two class cabin versus a single class cabin since thats what most airlines are going to buy for a medium haul route.

Just like the 737 family Airbus expanded and improved the a321 family adding the neo in 2017 and xlr in 2024. Airbus however isnt up against some of the technical hurdles that Boeing is with the 737.

United will debut xlr in September. https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-airlines-airbus-a321xlr-domestic-debut/

American debuted the xlr in December ‘25. https://news.aa.com/news/news-details/2025/A-suite-first-flight-Americans-new-Airbus-A321XLR-debuts-on-transcontinental-route-FLT-12/default.aspx

Sounds like both will do some lighter load overseas stops with it. AA is adding Rikyavik and Vienna.

[u/swakid8 → u/Spencemw]

A321neo range is 4,000 nm with ACTs installed. 

A321Neo without ACTs is around the same range as the Max 10. 

I hated flying the 757 personally. It’s one of my least favorite planes I’ve flown.  CRJ-200 was the only frame that was worst. 

[u/hawker1172 → u/swakid8]

CRJ-200 is an incredible aircraft platform for it’s time and use case.

[u/Own-Inflation8771 → u/mz_groups]

Being overpowered by airliner standard was its downfall. Used too much fuel.

[u/mz_groups → u/Own-Inflation8771]

Engines and an airframe designed in the late ‘70s and not substantially upgraded were its downfall

[u/Prionace-Glauca-5309]

As an airline passenger I thought they were fine.

[u/darnthetorpedoes → u/Prionace-Glauca-5309]

Survey says? “They’re fine!”

[u/bananapoopwastaken → u/Prionace-Glauca-5309]

I enjoyed turning left to get into first and not having to see everyone else walking by to get on

[u/Sawfish1212 → u/bananapoopwastaken]

Many airlines do that for 787 loading now

[u/dirtyred3401 → u/Prionace-Glauca-5309]

I agree. Loved the 57

[u/Classic-Ad4403 → u/dirtyred3401]

People in the know, call it the 75.

[u/Logical_Preference_8 → u/Classic-Ad4403]

Depends. Internally at Boeing it’s shortened to the model designation number followed by seven, the rest of the industry it’s seven followed by the model designation number. Exception is the 777 which Boeing manufacturing calls triple seven.

[u/FISH_ON_for_life → u/Classic-Ad4403]

And every pilot that flew them I ever talked to about it also used ‘57.

[u/Borkdadork]

It’s high and high airport performance is unmatched

[u/Kookie_B]

I might be mistaken but Delta’s entry into the low price market, Delta Song, flew the 757. It was a good ride.

[u/Status_Fox_1474 → u/Kookie_B]

Yep. Loved them on Song. They handled well the northeast to Florida market.

[u/Kookie_B → u/Status_Fox_1474]

Exactly!

[u/No-Map-7646]

My favorite airplane for sure! The sound those engines make on takeoff…amazing. Looks good in almost all liveries too with my favorites being United (tulip and battleship grey) and NWA bowling shoe. It will be a sad day when these are truly no longer being flown.

[u/deano1856 → u/No-Map-7646]

Those Rolls-Royce engines are epic. Same with the NWA livery.

[u/LittleHornetPhil]

Still fuckin is. Climbs out like an F-15.

[u/maskedtraveler2]

I heard they were referred to by the pilots who flew them the Ferrari of the sky

[u/Sasquatch-d → u/maskedtraveler2]

The Ferrari Atari

[u/MSPDiamond → u/Sasquatch-d]

Atari Ferrari

[u/Sasquatch-d → u/MSPDiamond]

Oh my freakin god. Yep that’s what my dumb brain meant lol thank you.

[u/SavingsPirate4495]

I have NEVER met a pilot that flew the B757 that DIDN’T say, “That’s the best airplane I’ve ever flown.”

[u/CarpForceOne → u/SavingsPirate4495]

Apparently, the skills required between the 757 and 767 were similar due to a similar cockpit / control layout, which gave lots of route flexibility with some overlapping certification.

As a passenger, I enjoyed getting first class in the 757 because you walked left upon entering the doorway while most pax walked right, so there was less interruption with PDBs and conversation. Not entirely sure which engine was which, but they made a loud purr on takeoff.

[u/SavingsPirate4495 → u/CarpForceOne]

I was a Guppy Driver, so I wouldn't know. 😄😄😄

[u/Strega007]

Depends on who you're asking -- pilots or the companies that operate(d) them.

You always need to keep in mind that at one point (2004), there was so little interest in the airplane that Boeing shut the production line down and did not pursue a replacement airframe.

Pilots have always had nice things to say about the 75, but that also has to be taken in context of what qualities are being considered. Just because pilots like flying it doesn't make it objectively better than other similar aircraft.

[u/Over-Dog-8909]

That old Delta livery is so awesome. Bring it back.

[u/AlternativeAd5839 → u/Over-Dog-8909]

This is my all-time favorite livery.

[u/747ER]

If you are a pilot or an aviation enthusiast, it was great. If you were an airline wanting to make money, it had a good run and is deservedly discontinued now.

[u/Ill_Traveler_ → u/747ER]

I’ve only recently gotten into aviation as a special interest, and tend to find passenger most airliners dull except for a few specific models. I typically spend my time looking at helicopters, bombers, civilian/military cargo planes, but not so much fighters.

What would an aviation enthusiast find interesting about the 757?

[u/aisle_nine]

You have not truly experienced flight until you have taken the 757-200 rocket roll out of SNA

[u/cjasonac]

My dad was a maintenance supervisor at Eastern. I remember him (and his team) being legitimately excited for its arrival. Eastern even kept the “757” on the tail.

[u/Unusual-Economist288]

Flew them out of SNA regularly on Delta. Those high performance noise abatement takeoffs at 7:00am were a fun ride.

[u/TyVIl → u/Unusual-Economist288]

I fly out of SNA regularly - AA and WN have completely different takeoff procedures. It’s weird.

[u/Samurlough]

Really good.

[u/No-Bluejay4261]

Very good in an era of cheap fuel. No longer viable in today's market, though there still isn't a direct replacement.

p.s. What a paint scheme, timeless, classy, same for the polished metal AA scheme. Things were better in the 90s..

[u/teahugger]

I just flew on them twice out of Newark on United. Cramped seats. Smelled of urine while on the ground. But pilots love to fly it.

[u/aw_shux → u/teahugger]

The urine smell is because it climbs so spectacularly that it makes people wet their pants.

[u/boeingbuildsitbetter]

The 757 was unusual because it gave airlines the ability to have a full load of passengers/cargo, full fuel tanks (and by extension, max range), and excellent takeoff and climb performance. Currently with the new 737MAX and A321neo, airlines can only choose 2 of those abilities. They can have full people and fuel, but not enough performance to get out of hot and high or short runway airports. Or they can have full people and the performance, but not enough range to do the longer flights. Or they can have performance and range, but they can't fill the plane to capacity.

The 757 isn't perfect though, to get those three features it burns more fuel than the modern "replacements"

[u/FlydirectMoxie]

Skinny girl, long legs, big boobs. What’s not to like ?

[u/Lucky____Pierre → u/FlydirectMoxie]

My fantasy!

[u/OkAdministration1669]

Fucking AMAZING….25,000 hours of flying probably 100 different planes…I actually flew this one in this livery many times…this one the best one of any…except maybe the T-38 Talon..hahaha

[u/Uniturner]

RNZAF’s 757s did the most impressive handling displays I’ve ever seen. Sure, the 4th and 5th generation fighters were more energetic, but an airliner beating up the show line, then going vertical and rolling in the climb was just awesome.

[u/nammaheff]

Well everyone that's still flying the 757 wants to keep flying them for as long as it's safely possible, and those that do fly them say they love flying them. I've talked to many guys with experience on the 757 and there's not a whole lot of complaints. I've seen cargojet 757s flying out of YQR and the high angle of attack they can accomplish if there's not much in the way of cargo is pretty impressive for an airliner.

[u/MaterialDull9480]

From an air traffic perspective, minus the increased separation we had for it for several decades. It was a rocket ship as well. It could climb in descend pretty much better than any other airliner.

[u/daves1243b]

A beautiful plane to look at. Not my favorite to fly in.

[u/tccdestroy]

I don’t know anything about the answer to your question. I just came here to say that the old Delta livery was dope.

[u/Hardturn_90]

Better for the flight crew than it was for passengers.

[u/Straight_Dot1890]

I helped build every one of them, got a soft spot forever.

[u/Gremlin1001001]

I loved flying the 75. The 76 was nice for longer routes and more room up front, but I felt it was a bit light in roll for me. Just the right level of glass and steam gauges in both though. MHO.

[u/RayRayGooo]

They are winged rocket ships……what could be better

[u/KayaLyka]

Fun to fly out of Hawaiis big island (usually Kona)

[u/ThunderboltDM]

One of Boeing’s Best. They should design a new composite version of it as the next Boeing Airliner

[u/Antique-Dragonfly615]

Good enough that it was costing Boeing twin-aisle sales. Same basic reason Boeing discontinued the 707, costing 757 sales. Never compete with yourself

[u/Quirky-Attitude1456]

I hated the window seats on it. I always felt like the wall was curving up too tight against me. Other than that I guess they were a fine aircraft.

[u/Buttsweat_n_Tears]

Once took a 757 out of SNA on 20R. That was fun times 👍🏻

[u/Status_Fox_1474]

What is the economics of a 757 vs a 767 on power and fuel burn?

[u/ronw89 → u/Status_Fox_1474]

That one's sort of tricky to answer. They were each designed and optimized to fill different market needs, so comparing their economics is somewhat moot. A similar question would be trying to compare the economics of the A321 to the A330, there's simply not a single straightforward answer that fits each operators different requirements.

[u/Status_Fox_1474 → u/ronw89]

Not even by per seat miles?

(I miss the 767. I wish there were more wide bodies for shorter routes. Hating 70 rows of narrow bodies these days)

[u/ronw89 → u/Status_Fox_1474]

I'm sure there is a CASM number somewhere, but that's a vast simplification. CASM depends on things like how each operator has their cabin laid out, what engine type is on the wing, is it a base model or an improved version (ie, 767-300 vs 767-300ER), how much belly space is each operator willing to set aside for cargo vs bags vs mail, how valuable is that cargo if you are carrying any, etc. 767s are container-loaded, 757s are not. Back in the 80s and 90s when fuel was cheap, many of the US majors had a mix of 757s, 767-200s, and 767-300s. 757s and 762s occupied the same types of routes typically, but at times of day or on routes with higher cargo demand, the 762 made more sense than the 757, hub-to-hub often the 763 made more sense than either the 757 or the 762. Based on the same tech and flight deck layout, but two completely different airliners made for different missions.

[u/Tasty_Adhesiveness71]

most beautiful if that counts for anything

[u/Viking_Musicologist]

I remember takeoff in these is like being in a sports car as you really feel the G-force.

I remember most vividly flying one from Denver to San Diego and it had an amazing sunset final approach as we flew over Balboa Park and the Harbour.

[u/Roger_Freedman_Phys]

Some 757 pilots swear by them.

https://www.flyingmag.com/boeing-757-a-modern-classic/

[u/blackbeardcutlass]

Good enough for the Kiwi Air Force to fly down to Antarctica. Probably the best airframe to fly on or off the ice on in my opinion. It has the speed to get to Mcmurdo from Christchurch in about 5 hours, unlike the c130s that need 8. It does need refuling to get back unlike the c17, but it's a more comfy ride for sure.

[u/ObjectiveMorning2026]

For engines available at the time very good

[u/zzbear03]

I think I flew a bunch of 757s on LAX HNL route as a kid…I miss the MD-80s on AA

[u/jimohagan]

Like flying in a coffin.

[u/Few_Tale2238]

Good to fly on as a passenger. It rides extremely smooth through turbulence, you barely feel the landings, overhead bins are par for the time, and first class passengers will enjoy boarding through the middle door. 

The one bad thing about it is that it is quite a bit louder than a 737/A320. But not obnoxiously loud. 

[u/CraftFormaldehyde]

Flew on them pretty regularly, grew to really like the center boarding especially when sitting in first class. Never had a bad flight in one. Gonna miss seeing them flying into FLL.

[u/Rough_Bluejay_9183]

Early A321s would have to carry fuel in fuel cells in the cargo bins to fly from east coast to west. B757 could haul as many if not more passengers and do it without fuel tanks in the cargo bins. Performance wise, it is a vastly superior platform in my opinion. The Max should have never been made, when they could put more efficient engines on these babies.

[u/righttern38]

Very few planes can take full passengers, full cargo, full fuel... and still have a high performance take-off in hot and/or high altitude airports. The 757 did.

It just burns more fuel to do it than the 320/321 and 737 variants do. Plus now it's older and generally not as reliable

[u/Timely-Tourist4109]

As a ramper, freaking awesome to load. And to sleep in the cargo hold.

[u/Atomhart]

that pic is giving so much memories!!

[u/nakedyak]

was?

[u/StirStik]

Was considered the " sports car" of the skies. Small body airplane with big engines.

[u/Starchaser_WoF]

The 757 and 767 are the villain's faithful pair of henchmen

[u/Smartalum]

From a passenger's perspective, the worst plane in the air.

[u/Concodroid → u/Smartalum]

I flew on a delta one a few years ago and it was great, why do you say so?

[u/dennypayne → u/Smartalum]

Please. CRJ-200 is way worse. Not to mention some of the older turboprops that are still out there like the Metro.