Why don't they just make more 757s but with the latest engines?

At the time they killed production, heavy widebody seemed to be the future of medium to long haul and with southwest trying to strongarm boeing into producing the 737 max there wasn't any room left in the market to keep the 757 so boeing killed a kino legend and replaced it with an embarrassing death trap nightmare plane to cater to the ego of the CEO of the walmart of airlines

>>2048595 (OP)
The A340-300 really was powered by five APUs.

>>2048595 (OP)
Boeing destroyed all the tooling.
>>2048602
I get it. Having an entire fleet of a single type is attractive, but trying to beat a 737 type into effectively a 751 means it’s shit at everything.

>>2048595 (OP)
What's TWR?

>>2048855
thrust to weight

>>2048602
Boeing was going to do the 737 max anyways. It's their best selling plane and the A320neo was going to murder it in the market by the simple virtue of being tall enough to mount newer, higher bypass engines.

Should Boeing have launched a 757 re-engine, dubbed the 757X? While on the surface, it seems like a good idea, several analysts have identified many issues about such a move.

A clean sheet, while costly, would’ve likely made more sense for Boeing. However, with no plans to advance with this new plane, many believe it’s too late to enter this market. For Boeing, they will be forced to witness Airbus’ success in the market for at least another decade before moving ahead with their new plane.

>>2049000
>Should Boeing have launched a 757 re-engine, dubbed the 757X?
Yes given what we know today, but it was definitely no at the time. Thin, long range twins were not in demand, and WN didn’t want to add a second type. Now with Airbus able to beat an A321 into a mini 752 with 4k nmi range, sure Boeing looks like a bunch of fucking idiots. But the A321XLR wasn’t a thing until 2019, and the 75 production line was canned in 2006. When the 731 was designed, there was no way to know that larger diameter, high bypass turbofans would be grafted onto an airframe designed in the 1960s. Boeing got caught with their pants down, but each incremental decision wasn’t unreasonable at the time.

>>2048595 (OP)
Because there are no engines currently available to power such an aircraft.

>>2049073
Just slap two Trents on a narrowbody, you COWARDS

>>2049073
Also to add the 757 is made for shorter runways and higher performance, put simply the plane is not made for efficient long haul flights and would need major redesigns, plus all the tooling was destroyed years before such an aircraft was needed. Clean sheet is the only way really or they maybe could have re engined the 767 as it’s more suitable but it’s too late for that. Personally I would loved to have seen a revamped 767.

>>2049075
To add even further, Airbus will respond with a lengthened a321 and will have major advantages over a revamped 75/76 due to commonality with current a320/21 production which I believe will beat the Boeing to service and will dominate due to commonality with parts and cockpit setup. But right now neither side wants to bother with such an aircraft due to their respective problems.

>>2049076
Forgot pic

>>2048595 (OP)
>E190 that high
based brazilian pocket rocket

>>2049202
If you made this I want you to know the cycle can be broken and you can find happiness and a gf who appreciates when you ramble about how great triple spool engines sound

>>2049077
>A322 and A323 memes are real
Genuinely how? Unemployment attitude is already 9.5° in an A321. How are the longer planes going to rotate? Will they have to move to a triple slotted trailing flap? I have so many questions.

>>2049247
Make all the landing gear extend-o-matic

>>2049274
But Boeing has yet to deliver a 737 MAX 10 or even get approval for it, and that design absolutely depends on extend-o-gear.

>>2049274
Dangerously zased

>>2049247
> How are the longer planes going to rotate
Make tall runways and just fly off the end.