Including cargo versions, US manufacturer Boeing produced more than 1,000 examples of its iconic 757 jetliner. Customers had the choice of either the standard -200 variant, or the stretched-fuselage -300 version. In the end, there was a huge difference between the popularity of the two types, with Boeing producing just 55 757-300s. But was this because it was too long?
Differences between the two variants
Let’s start by examining the differences between the two variants of the 757. Boeing designed the standard -200 version to carry 200 passengers in a typical two-class configuration (12 first class, 188 economy class). Meanwhile, a high-density, all-economy setup could see its capacity exceed 220 paying customers. The 757-200’s exit limit was set at 239 passengers. Using the aforementioned two-class 200-seat configuration, it had a range of 3,915 NM / 7,250 km.
Meanwhile, the 757-300 could typically carry 243 passengers across two classes (12 first class. 231 economy class). A one-class setup could see this rise to around 280, and its exit limit was set at 295. The reason for this additional capacity was its stretched fuselage, which saw it measure more than seven meters longer than the standard 757-200 (47.3 meters vs 54.4 meters). Its range with a standard two-class configuration was 3,400 NM / 6,295 km.
Stay informed: Sign up for our daily aviation news digest.
The 757-300 is the second-longest single-aisle commercial aircraft ever built. It falls just short of the Douglas DC-8, whose -61, 63, 71, and 73 variants measured 57.1 meters long. Its length necessitated a special retractable tail skid to prevent tail strikes.
The specifications show that, while operators of the larger 757-300 could carry more passengers, they had to compromise on range. The aircraft was ultimately ordered by airlines that needed to strike a balance between providing a higher capacity and flying into and out of smaller airports, such as certain Caribbean destinations.
Considerably less popular
The 757-300 received a total of just 55 orders. Meanwhile, Boeing produced more than 900 757-200s, and this variant was also fairly popular as a cargo aircraft. But what are the reasons for this striking contrast in popularity?
Right from the off, it was fairly evident that the 757-300 was a relatively obsolete product within the Boeing line up. Its widebody 767 offers a greater capacity than the 757-200, and without the need to compromise on range that comes with the 757-300. As such, its only selling point over the 767, which Boing developed in conjunction with the 757, was its ability to serve smaller airports. This limited the 757-300’s sales prospects to a rather niche market.
Another contributing aspect is the fact that Boeing introduced the 757-300 much later in production. By the time the -300 was offered, many airlines had already ordered the smaller 757-200. The type didn’t enter service with German leisure carrier Condor until 1999, by which time the original variant had been active for 16 years.
Passengers are also said to have disliked the 757-300 compared to its smaller counterpart. Being a very long, single-aisle aircraft, it reportedly took up to eight minutes longer to board the 757-300 compared to the -200 variant. This aspect also slowed down onboard service, giving passengers a longer wait for attention. Meanwhile, the twin-aisle 767 allowed for a much smoother flow of a similar amount of passengers through the cabin.
Still active today
Before the coronavirus pandemic forced carriers to ground aircraft, most of the 55 757-300s produced were still in service. Today, airlines appreciate its flexibility in offering higher capacity while still being able to access smaller airports.
The 757-300 may well have proven more popular had it been produced today, rather than in the late-90s and early-2000s. After all, we are now seeing an increasing trend towards single-aisle aircraft on longer-haul flights. Airbus, for example, is currently developing the A321XLR. This aircraft nearly matches the 757-300’s capacity, while having 1,500 extra nautical miles of range.
As such, it is fair to say that Boeing did make the 757-300 too long, but only in the context of commercial aviation at the time of its production. Today, a similar product might have proved very popular considering current trends.
What do you make of the Boeing 757-300? Have you ever flown one, and, if so, with which airline? Let us know your thoughts and experiences in the comments!