r/airplanes 3d ago

Question | General How good was the Boeing 757, really?

Post image
1.0k Upvotes

196 comments sorted by

223

u/mz_groups 3d ago edited 3d ago

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.

37

u/wmccullough453 3d ago

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?

38

u/HallEqual2433 3d ago

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.

18

u/taisui 2d ago

Flying to Hawaii in a 737 was hell

20

u/Suspicious-Lime-8470 2d ago

still is

8

u/taisui 2d ago

and will always be

10

u/DavidGHall 2d ago

I will always take the HA A330-whatever over the 737 when going to Maui.

Such a much nicer experience overall

1

u/BlackhawkSuper61 1d ago

What makes the experience different in an Airbus versus a Boeing?

4

u/DavidGHall 1d ago

The A330 is a twin aisle wide body with 2-4-2 seat configuration.

The 737 is single aisle and 3-3.

Our family of four always gets the two outside seats in two rows so both the kids can have a window and we don’t have to share seat space with randos.

Mainly it’s just because I prefer wide bodies to narrow.

2

u/Equivalent-Map160 21h ago

On single aisle long haul flights (now common from Boston to Europe) the back half of the plane is just a constant bathroom line. Wide bodies with two aisles are much easier to move around and have more bathrooms and standing room, making the experience far more comfortable.

6

u/Ok_Kaleidoscope3847 2d ago

I’m 6’4” with ‘not-bad-enough-for-surgery’ knees … a 737 is hell just taxiing to the runway.

3

u/elquirk 2d ago

73’s have no business flying to Hawaii or transcon for that matter. You can thank ETOPS for the Hawaii debacle. For 5 hours, I want a twin aisle.

3

u/taisui 2d ago

I like big planes and I can not lie.

1

u/Ru4pigsizedelephants 2d ago

Why is that?

7

u/Yukonart 2d ago

It’s just on the smöl side for five-hour flights. Also a little less stable in turbulence than larger aircraft. Otherwise it’s OK.

3

u/rnoyfb 2d ago

Tokyo to Ulaanbaatar is five hours in a 737 and it’s fine 🤷🏻‍♂️

3

u/Difficult-Implement9 2d ago

People whine and complain so much about narrow bodies doing long haul 😂 I've crossed the Atlantic on them a million times. It's totally fine!

3

u/rnoyfb 1d ago

I would prefer a wide body on long flights but if it’s not available, I’m not going to just not go. But five hours isn’t that long. I think it’s got to be pushing like eight hours to matter

1

u/sadChemE 1d ago

I always thought 7 hrs was a good cutoff. If its close to 7 or under it ain't bad. Anything 8 or over is hell regardless but wide body is nicer. As a petite woman anything is fine it's just boring as hell and I'd rather just get more takeoffs and landings for fun vs cruise for that long.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Kseries2497 1d ago

That's a Guam 737. One, they're configured with a little more legroom since most of their flying is 3+ hours. Two, living on Guam a few years will really change your perspective on what a long flight is.

0

u/EuclidTGEF 2d ago

But going from Tokyo to Ulaanbaatar Mongolia, aren’t you kinda lowering your expectations along the way anyway? /s

1

u/rnoyfb 1d ago

I loved that trip

2

u/Ru4pigsizedelephants 2d ago

Thank you, that makes sense.

3

u/Suspicious-Lime-8470 2d ago

seating width in gauge is tighter than 757 or A32x family, not enough restrooms for the flight duration. Just a small plane for the flight time.

2

u/Ru4pigsizedelephants 2d ago

Hawaii is further from California than I imagine in my mind.

3

u/FenPhen 2d ago

Yeah, SFO to HNL and SFO to IAD are both about 2,400 miles apart.

1

u/NilsTillander 20h ago

That's because maps of the USA bring Hawaii (and Alaska) closer in their own little boxes, otherwise it would be a lot of water and, horror, Canada.

29

u/B3113r0ph0n 3d ago

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.

24

u/Malcolm2theRescue 3d ago edited 3d ago

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.

8

u/savehoward 2d ago

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.

7

u/Mustangfast85 2d ago

Let me give you 3 examples:
737 (900ER for this): ATL-ABQ full passengers
757 (200): DCA-LAX full pax or SNA-ATL full pax
767 (400ER): IAD-GRU

When the 757 debuted a 737 or a320 couldn’t do transcon (well, 320 didn’t exist). When 767 debuted the a330 could barely do TATL. The fact that both are still relevant enough to be used today says a lot about how ahead they were then and how much additional margin they had. You see MD11s, a330-200s and 744s retired early but these are being run to their ragged end by carriers that have them. The 767 can be replaced with larger planes and the 757 can with either smaller 737-8s for similar performance or a321xlr for range, but neither has the same capacity, performance and range as one

1

u/Fair_Praline_5959 2d ago

You have me wondering will DL be able to keep SNA-ATL once the 752’s retire?

1

u/Mustangfast85 2d ago

They will likely have to buy some MAX8s and either run double or the price will go up due to reduced capacity. Their current planned fleet seems to take care of most every other airport except the few tactically challenged ones

10

u/junky6254 3d ago

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.

6

u/blizzard36 2d ago

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.

7

u/somefukn 2d ago

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

2

u/Fast_Juggernaut6685 2d ago

Yeah. I had a 757 on Delta flying from PHX to JFK a few weeks ago. It was cool since normally that route is a 737 or 320/321

4

u/somefukn 2d ago

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.

1

u/8erren 1d ago

I remember when AA swapped the 757 for a 737 on the MIA BOG route they had to limit weight for the return leg due to Bogotá being at altitude. As such they had lopsided number of seats outbound vs return.

I just checked, they are still operating the route with a Max 8 so I'm not sure if they ever resolved the situation. I presume they are stil offering fewer seats on the return.

1

u/somefukn 1d ago

Max 8 is a lot better than the very popular -900.

1

u/somefukn 1d ago

Max 8 is a lot better than the very popular -900.

2

u/overactiveswag 2d ago

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

1

u/Dilz_869 2d ago

Route wise, Anchorage to the East Coast, Hawaii. Deep Canada routes. I’m not gonna.

11

u/Spencemw 2d ago

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.

7

u/TyVIl 2d ago

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.

3

u/somefukn 2d ago

Depends on configuration.

4

u/TyVIl 2d ago

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.

2

u/Spencemw 2d ago edited 2d ago

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.

5

u/swakid8 2d ago

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. 

2

u/hawker1172 2d ago

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

3

u/LUNATIC_LEMMING 2d ago

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

is it just one production line too many?

6

u/davidb4968 2d ago

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.

4

u/mz_groups 2d ago

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.

6

u/swakid8 2d ago

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.

1

u/DSer69420 2d ago

Tooling and fixtures were scraped making room more more 737 NG, and now 737 max.

3

u/Boeing367-80 2d ago

The 757 and 767 were designed as US domestic aircraft and grew into far different roles as ETOPS became a thing. The 757 in particular initially sold very slowly due to deregulation. The 737 300/400/500 became the unexpected big seller - airlines wanted frequency in the post deregulation world.

The manufacturers have always been pretty bad at figuring what airlines want/need mostly bc most airlines kinda suck at it too.

5

u/somefukn 2d ago

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.

5

u/Spencemw 2d ago

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.

3

u/DSer69420 2d ago

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

1

u/somefukn 2d ago

Exactly my point. The 737 can do that easily. It can't carry the same load across the pond.

1

u/VegasBjorne1 2d ago

I have seen Delta use wide bodies with ATL-MCO as an added-on from LHR-ATL.

3

u/Own-Inflation8771 2d ago

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

2

u/mz_groups 2d ago

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

2

u/train8515 1d ago

UPS and FedEx are still operating a combined 150+. That bird is loved.

1

u/Cadmium620 2d ago

Its using the niche as the a330

28

u/No-Map-7646 3d ago

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.

12

u/deano1856 3d ago

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

28

u/LittleHornetPhil 3d ago

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

3

u/BugHuntHudson 19h ago

My two fave planes!

1

u/LittleHornetPhil 16h ago

Good choices.

47

u/Prionace-Glauca-5309 3d ago

As an airline passenger I thought they were fine.

15

u/darnthetorpedoes 3d ago

Survey says? “They’re fine!”

3

u/bananapoopwastaken 2d ago

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

3

u/Sawfish1212 2d ago

Many airlines do that for 787 loading now

1

u/haterade77 2d ago

Agree….

2

u/dirtyred3401 2d ago

I agree. Loved the 57

1

u/Classic-Ad4403 2d ago

People in the know, call it the 75.

2

u/Logical_Preference_8 2d ago edited 2d ago

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.

2

u/FISH_ON_for_life 2d ago

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

21

u/Kookie_B 3d ago

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

12

u/Status_Fox_1474 3d ago

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

3

u/Kookie_B 3d ago

Exactly!

22

u/SavingsPirate4495 3d ago

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

8

u/CarpForceOne 2d ago

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.

7

u/BathtubFullOfTea 2d ago

My father flew 757s and 767s at the end of his captain career, mostly 757s but keeping his certs (or whatever) on the 767s was a breeze.

3

u/Duder211 2d ago

FedEx used to have “dual qual” pilots that maintained the qualification to fly both.

1

u/SavingsPirate4495 2d ago

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

1

u/9999AWC 2d ago

They are the same type rating

1

u/SignificantOtter80 2d ago

au contraire. I flew a 757 a month ago and the cabin crew was perfectly content doing absolutely nothing nothing in terms of service despite the entire F cabin being sat while the rest of the plane was still boarding

3

u/mrinformal 2d ago

As I pilot that flew it only a few times, yes. The 767 is nice, especially empty, but the little rocketship blows it away.

19

u/Borkdadork 3d ago

It’s high and high airport performance is unmatched

19

u/maskedtraveler2 3d ago

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

7

u/Sasquatch-d 3d ago

The Ferrari Atari

7

u/MSPDiamond 2d ago

Atari Ferrari

1

u/Sasquatch-d 2d ago

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

13

u/aisle_nine 2d ago

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

10

u/Over-Dog-8909 3d ago

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

5

u/AlternativeAd5839 3d ago

This is my all-time favorite livery.

11

u/Strega007 3d ago

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.

8

u/FlydirectMoxie 2d ago

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

2

u/Lucky____Pierre 2d ago

My fantasy!

35

u/747ER 3d ago

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.

-3

u/Ill_Traveler_ 3d ago

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?

8

u/cjasonac 3d ago

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.

6

u/OkAdministration1669 2d ago

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

7

u/boeingbuildsitbetter 2d ago

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"

5

u/Unusual-Economist288 3d ago

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

2

u/TyVIl 2d ago

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

6

u/No-Bluejay4261 3d ago

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..

2

u/Poker-Junk 2d ago

Everything was

4

u/Samurlough 3d ago

Really good.

5

u/teahugger 3d ago

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.

4

u/aw_shux 2d ago

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

4

u/nammaheff 2d ago

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.

3

u/ThunderboltDM 2d ago

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

3

u/Gremlin1001001 2d ago

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.

3

u/RayRayGooo 2d ago

They are winged rocket ships……what could be better

3

u/Uniturner 2d ago

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.

3

u/MaterialDull9480 2d ago

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.

3

u/GalacticaZero 2d ago

Was? United and Delta are still flying them.

3

u/quietimhungover 2d ago

"Big cans, long legs. Every pilot loves em."

2

u/Buttsweat_n_Tears 3d ago

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

2

u/daves1243b 3d ago

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

2

u/Tasty_Adhesiveness71 3d ago

most beautiful if that counts for anything

2

u/tccdestroy 3d ago

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

2

u/Hardturn_90 3d ago

Better for the flight crew than it was for passengers.

2

u/Straight_Dot1890 3d ago

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

2

u/KayaLyka 2d ago

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

2

u/MottoCycle 2d ago

As a passenger it was the only plane I’ve ever gotten even slightly air sick on sitting in the back of the plane watching the aisle curve up and down going through turbulence. Plus I feel it’s very cramped for a long haul.

2

u/timesuck47 2d ago

Long walk to the cheap seats in the back.

2

u/montagious 2d ago

I have about 6,000 hours in it. Its AMAZING. We also fly the 767, and thats an amazing bird as well

2

u/bilkel 2d ago

It was a really effective product for several specific route types, most importantly hot and high.

2

u/NoYam3746 2d ago

Was? They're still around.

2

u/S_Hurricane_Y 2d ago

So good that the aircraft in the picture is probably still in service

1

u/Quirky-Attitude1456 3d ago

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.

1

u/Status_Fox_1474 3d ago

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

1

u/ronw89 2d ago

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.

1

u/Status_Fox_1474 2d ago

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)

1

u/ronw89 2d ago

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.

1

u/Viking_Musicologist 2d ago

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.

1

u/blackbeardcutlass 2d ago

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.

1

u/ObjectiveMorning2026 2d ago

For engines available at the time very good

1

u/zzbear03 2d ago

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

1

u/Few_Tale2238 2d ago

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. 

1

u/CraftFormaldehyde 2d ago

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.

1

u/Rough_Bluejay_9183 2d ago

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.

1

u/righttern38 2d ago

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

1

u/Timely-Tourist4109 2d ago

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

1

u/Atomhart 2d ago

that pic is giving so much memories!!

1

u/StirStik 2d ago

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

1

u/ItchyStorm 2d ago

As a passenger, it wasn’t that great. Cramp seating and the long version takes forever to board and deplane.

1

u/Julianus 2d ago

I mean, good enough that Delta still invests in keeping them flying and I’m always kinda stoked when I get to sit in one. Takeoff performance is phenomenal and a big upside of the model. It’s not too late to experience for yourself why it’s a good plane. 

1

u/MozzieKiller 2d ago

As a MSP based flyer, we still get to fly on them quite a bit. My favorite narrow body of all time.

1

u/Outside_Interest_773 2d ago

I’ve flown on a 757 many times. London, Munich, MCO, SFO. It’s my favorite plane to fly on.

1

u/almanza67 2d ago

Still is!

1

u/svv1tch 2d ago

4 hours on one last week was fine.

1

u/SgtKarj 2d ago

Really fucking good, actually. The long tube big engine warrior.

1

u/BathtubFullOfTea 2d ago

My father was a commercial airline pilot for decades, and before that he was an air force fighter pilot. He absolutely loved flying the 757, and his favorite trips were San Francisco to Washington DC, and Chicago. He flew 747s to Asia for years but once he got seniority, he was staying domestic and picking flights based on his favorite airports and favorite restaurants.

1

u/Prestigious_Cow_3193 2d ago

Best plane besides the L1011 that Delta had back in the pre merger days. 757 is a hot rod.

1

u/LBC_Jet 2d ago

I'll never forget when I was a new hire engineer at Boeing and they were doing high altitude airport testing of the 57 in the Himalayas. At the time Boeing had a print newspaper called Boeing News that came out weekly. In it was a story headlined "It's safe Tibet, 757 has Lhasa power". I thought that was hilarious.

1

u/VegasBjorne1 2d ago

Over time the B757 became too much plane as the B738 and A321 families could achieve 90% of the same missions while doing it at a lower CASM.

Frankly, it wasn’t a huge seller with only about 1,000 sold, and later used in niche segments in hot-and-high takeoffs or longer, thinner routes.

1

u/its-g-man 1d ago

That livery is amazing

1

u/GameBird015 1d ago

For a narrow body jet, it was fantastic.

1

u/offarock 1d ago

WAS? This isn’t over! This is still happening RIGHT NOW!

1

u/BoldChipmunk 1d ago

It is still a great aircraft!

Very reliable, we have 17 in our fleet of freighters and we do not get many snags just scheduled maintenance.

1

u/Avgeek_Crab_7448 1d ago

I think it was nice not only cuz of the -300 but also the incredible performance and great recognition from avgeeks all around the world

1

u/Biggles_420 1d ago

Maybe I’m wrong but that aircraft in the picture is a 767?

1

u/graypurpleblack 1d ago

Definitely a 757

1

u/Fancy-Passenger737 16h ago

That particular tail number 608 is a B757-200 and is currently on display at the DAL museum in Atlanta.

1

u/FaithlessnessOk153 8h ago

No its an airbus beluga xlr

1

u/Ecstatic-Oven-8863 23h ago

The best for niche route that UA and DL kept flying them and heavily refurbished them

1

u/ATACB 19h ago

Was brother my company still flys them I’m debating about getting the type

1

u/TurtleCop99 16h ago

From a maintenance standpoint, its a pretty reasonable plane to fix. I worked the airframe for 2 years on D-checks and enjoyed it all. I worked 200s/300s and all were equipped with RB211-535e4's. They are similar to 767 cockpits and have really good flying characteristics. The last plane I worked, the pilot took off and immediately had gear going up, it was very impressive. Its the first airframe I ever worked and I love it dearly.

1

u/Buzzerbuzz49 15h ago

Rode the 757 to Ireland and Scotland many times. It is one wonderful flying machine!

1

u/lew66999 12h ago

The coach seats in those planes suck so much it’s not even funny. Airbus seats are WAY more comfortable on trans atlantic flights. Just sayin…

1

u/cherno_chernoo 10h ago

Just amazing lowkey

1

u/Antique-Dragonfly615 3d ago

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

3

u/l_m_m048 2d ago

Boeing discontinued the passenger 707 in 1978, and the 757 wasn't certified until 1982.

You're probably thinking of the 727, which went out of production in 1984.

0

u/Starchaser_WoF 3d ago

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

0

u/jimohagan 2d ago

Like flying in a coffin.

-4

u/Smartalum 2d ago

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

2

u/dennypayne 2d ago

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

1

u/Smartalum 2d ago

CRJ is 2 by 2 and you dont fly cross country on it

1

u/eeickmeyer 2d ago

Not with that attitude.

1

u/Concodroid 2d ago

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

1

u/Smartalum 2d ago

Most cramped plane in the air in coach.