Old 14th Mar 2019, 22:05
  #190 (permalink)  
tdracer
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 63
Posts: 2,130
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Worth reading this article by Jon Ostrower who explains, in typical pithy fashion, how Boeing were backed into a corner and had to choose between doing a warmed-up 737 or having Airbus eat their lunch.
The story is well known within Boeing - Boeing never wanted to do the MAX, work had been ongoing on a 737 replacement aircraft for years. If the 787 hadn't been botched so badly, there is a good chance the 737 replacement would have been launched prior to the A320 NEO. But resources (both manpower and money) were spread thin by the 787 and the 747-8 development. So Airbus beat Boeing to the punch with the NEO - which was selling like the proverbial hotcakes. A new aircraft would have taken at least two years longer than the MAX, and then figure at least two more years to get up to the 50-60 aircraft production rate. That's ~2000 NEO aircraft that Airbus would deliver before Boeing could effectively respond if they went the route of a new aircraft instead of the MAX. And that was simply untenable to Boeing.

What Boeing still has going for it is the NMA (and the MAX fiasco might encourage Boeing to launch the NMA sooner - especially if MAX orders start going away) - the plan for the NMA has been to cover the range from 180 - 250 seats. So potentially a viable alternative to the 737-8/9/10 MAX if they can keep the recurring costs and operating costs down.
tdracer is offline