757-200 has about 800 nautical miles more range than the longest-range 737NG.
737-900er, the longest-range 737NG only has 3000 nautical miles of range, which is just enough for TATL flights. The 757-200's slightly longer range opens up many additional city pairs without having to upgauge to a 767.
Of course, now that Boeing has lost a couple of years due to massive failures (like the 737-MAX), Airbus has had time to catch up -- and the A320neo-based A321-XLR finally surpasses the 757-200 in this space.
However, the XLR seats about 70 fewer passengers than the 757, so the 757 will probably still live on for a little while longer.
If Boeing hadn't killed the 757, and then immediately start sucking, there might've been a refresh to a 757 MAX-like aircraft that sat 225-290, had a 4500nmi range and was efficient. But, you know, we got the real timeline instead.
737-900er, the longest-range 737NG only has 3000 nautical miles of range, which is just enough for TATL flights. The 757-200's slightly longer range opens up many additional city pairs without having to upgauge to a 767.
The 737-900ER doesn't have the range of the 757 but it will use less fuel on the routes both can do.
However, the XLR seats about 70 fewer passengers than the 757, so the 757 will probably still live on for a little while longer.
For airlines that already have 757s, maybe. The XLR and 757-200 both offer nearly identical seating (with the nod going to the XLR in one class config) and range. The 757-300 can seat about 40 more in one class config, but you take a pretty hefty range penalty. Ultimately the XLR is pretty much the direct replacement for the 757.
The XLR (and 900ER and MAX) also have one big advantage that no revamp of the 757 will offer: commonality. You can share flight and cabin crew between the 318/319/320/321 (CEO and NEO) and between the 600/700/800/900/900ER (NG) and 7/8/9/10 (MAX).
The Airbus lineup (320/330) is further compelling because going between the narrow and widebody product requires relatively little training.
If Boeing hadn't killed the 757, and then immediately start sucking, there might've been a refresh to a 757 MAX-like aircraft that sat 225-290, had a 4500nmi range and was efficient. But, you know, we got the real timeline instead.
Boeing killed the 757 because nobody bought it. Same with the 767. In fact the only reason the 767 line is still open is because the USAF bought the KC-46. Meanwhile 757 operators like Iceland Air were moving away from the 757 to the MAX. The 757 was a great plane, but it was the wrong product at the wrong time.
Personally I think the 737 ought to die. I don't like it as a passenger, and I can't imagine it being fun in the legendarily noisy and cramped cockpit on a long haul flight.
737-900er, the longest-range 737NG only has 3000 nautical miles of range, which is just enough for TATL flights. The 757-200's slightly longer range opens up many additional city pairs without having to upgauge to a 767.
Of course, now that Boeing has lost a couple of years due to massive failures (like the 737-MAX), Airbus has had time to catch up -- and the A320neo-based A321-XLR finally surpasses the 757-200 in this space.
However, the XLR seats about 70 fewer passengers than the 757, so the 757 will probably still live on for a little while longer.
If Boeing hadn't killed the 757, and then immediately start sucking, there might've been a refresh to a 757 MAX-like aircraft that sat 225-290, had a 4500nmi range and was efficient. But, you know, we got the real timeline instead.