767-200ER: just over 7,575 miles
787-8: just over 8,820 miles
Crazy how it’s not way more compared to the technological advancements
1 Like
767-200ER is great.
1 Like
787-10 range is about 7,400 miles LOL
2 Likes
oMg CrAzY HoW tHe 737 MAX hAs LeSs RaNgE tHaN tHe 757
it’s just not necessary 
Nothing beats the 757
Even the A321XLR can’t compete with its performance, sure, it can fly a little farther, but everything else it lacks
1 Like
737-200 with gravel kits, 757 (though the -300 not so much) and 767 (especially the -200ER) are the most versatile Boeing planes
No one tell PNG that Boeing was going to make a 767X which was going to be a new 764
Even I find it ridiculous. A new 763 makes way more sense. Just like a new 752 makes a lot of sense. It would beat the A321XLR in range by a long mile
1 Like
Nothing beats the 757… at 757 related tasks. If it’s something that they 757 wouldn’t be good for, say short regional flights, then many other things beat the 757.
1 Like
bruh
There’s a 787-8 right f*cking there
1 Like
I know that’s why their plan made no sense
1 Like
we need a 752x, a 762x and a 763x
1 Like
When the 757 was made for short to medium domestic flights on high demand routes
2 Likes
It would probably have slightly better range, but I don’t see Boeing giving it more than 5000nm (XLR has 4700nm).
1 Like
I can see them making the 752 and 763. 762 wouldn’t work because they already have so many aircraft and there’s no market for the 762. It’s already in between the 752 and 763
1 Like
well they most likely can, it’s that it’s not necessary
1 Like
Why not? It’s already close and an entirely new aircraft could do it (the 757 is 1980s technology)
ok then
what can replace the 762 1 to 1?
I’m talking short flights (sub-90min). For 2hrs+, the 757 isn’t bad though. A bit thirsty, but could be worse.
1 Like
Nothing. Cause the 763 is used more and it’s more popular
1 Like
Well it was used a lot on sub 90 minute flights 
2 Likes