Boeing at X-Roads?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lestah
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No airline wanted a competitor to the 737 from Boeing. Here's what happens when a company tries that.
The customers say "Is this going to be all new?"
"Yes"
"Then cancel my current orders and I'll wait for the new plane to come out, or maybe I'll just go to Airbus and see what they have if I have to start over."
or they say
"Since I have one common platform for my airline, I will have to toss all of them in the garbage or have incompatible planes and incompatible pilots? Can't you just make the 737 better?"
The customers say "Is this going to be all new?"
"Yes"
"Then cancel my current orders and I'll wait for the new plane to come out, or maybe I'll just go to Airbus and see what they have if I have to start over."
or they say
"Since I have one common platform for my airline, I will have to toss all of them in the garbage or have incompatible planes and incompatible pilots? Can't you just make the 737 better?"
You simply can not keep squeezing pips out the same lemon. Otherwise you will always get what you’ve always got.
Boeing needs organic revenue growth.
Pure revenue growth is a measurement of new products to new (not existing) customers. And investors are very hot these days on product vitality within overall revenues. Where is all that coming from today in Seattle?
Airbus spent a huge amount of money on the A380, clean sheet for a new market. Will be lucky to break even on production cost, will never recoup development cost. Oh, look: "In total, the A380 program cost an estimated €30 billion ($33.9 billion) — and most of that money came from European taxpayers." https://www.dw.com/en/airbus-a380-th...-dollar-dream/ Must be nice not to have to shoulder development costs.
I think you will find much of Boeing R+D was/is via military spending( ie using taxpayers money).
In addition the Boeing Starliner space capsule is a mess. Years behind schedule. Paid for by the public purse.
Starliner isn't a commercial aircraft; Boeing has taken around $1B in development write-downs for it.
Sure - back in 1950s the development of jet powered aircraft was paid for by all governments, but there hasn't been a direct government subsidy to Boeing to develop a civilian aircraft for non-government use.
Starliner isn't a commercial aircraft; Boeing has taken around $1B in development write-downs for it.
Starliner isn't a commercial aircraft; Boeing has taken around $1B in development write-downs for it.
It's probably been asked before but why didn't Boeing re-engine the 757 to compete with the A320 family rather than tweak the 737? Then there would have been no need for MCAS.
If it's a question of minimising training costs for airlines operating 737 fleets, why not arrange dual rating 737/757 for pilots? It worked well for 757/767 pilots even though these types had different handling characteristics.
If it's a question of minimising training costs for airlines operating 737 fleets, why not arrange dual rating 737/757 for pilots? It worked well for 757/767 pilots even though these types had different handling characteristics.
It's probably been asked before but why didn't Boeing re-engine the 757 to compete with the A320 family rather than tweak the 737? Then there would have been no need for MCAS.
If it's a question of minimising training costs for airlines operating 737 fleets, why not arrange dual rating 737/757 for pilots? It worked well for 757/767 pilots even though these types had different handling characteristics.
If it's a question of minimising training costs for airlines operating 737 fleets, why not arrange dual rating 737/757 for pilots? It worked well for 757/767 pilots even though these types had different handling characteristics.
A retired Boeing engineer here (tdracer) explained (my very rough summary) that the 757 was designed in and for a different economy (the 1980s). A very expensive aircraft to build and buy (although efficient with relatively low operating costs), in an era with no narrow-body competition from Airbus (yet). Once production ended in 2004, all the jigs and other dedicated production equipment were disposed of. So no economically-rational way to revive it when Boeing needed to compete with the A321neo.
With luck, he will be along to correct my "interpretation" of his words, where needed.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Top Bunk
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point taken . However remember the tanker competition that Boeing lost before you start throwing stones! ...........................
The main problem and also a constant headache for airliners still operating the 757 its the lack of proper uld's // containers for cargo hold, quite the opposite of even smaller airbuses, (pax config) ... Presently I'm not 100 sure about it, I must confess, but some years ago all 757 holds were bulk free luggage, no uld devices, except for those freighter built/modified on purpose for cargo carriers.
So no need to do any reengine neo à lá Airbus for a plane still using philosophies of last century...
So no need to do any reengine neo à lá Airbus for a plane still using philosophies of last century...
Yes - I asked that also.
A retired Boeing engineer here (tdracer) explained (my very rough summary) that the 757 was designed in and for a different economy (the 1980s). A very expensive aircraft to build and buy (although efficient with relatively low operating costs), in an era with no narrow-body competition from Airbus (yet). Once production ended in 2004, all the jigs and other dedicated production equipment were disposed of. So no economically-rational way to revive it when Boeing needed to compete with the A321neo.
With luck, he will be along to correct my "interpretation" of his words, where needed.
A retired Boeing engineer here (tdracer) explained (my very rough summary) that the 757 was designed in and for a different economy (the 1980s). A very expensive aircraft to build and buy (although efficient with relatively low operating costs), in an era with no narrow-body competition from Airbus (yet). Once production ended in 2004, all the jigs and other dedicated production equipment were disposed of. So no economically-rational way to revive it when Boeing needed to compete with the A321neo.
With luck, he will be along to correct my "interpretation" of his words, where needed.
The other problem for the 757 was that it had a huge wing - fine for the 180-220 passenger market, but trying to shrink it down for the 150-180 passenger market would have meant carrying far more wing than you needed - more weight, more drag, more costs (that's why 'shrinks' seldom work, while stretches usually do).
In the 2010 time-frame, Boeing was working on a new, clean sheet of paper replacement for the 737 (I had friends that were working it). But Airbus pretty much caught Boeing off-guard when they launched the A320 NEO. A new clean sheet design would have taken years longer to reach the market - then years more to bring the production rate up to the 40-50/month rate that the 737 and A320 series were at. It would have meant conceding nearly the entire single aisle market to Airbus for the better part of 10 year, while the 737 MAX could reach the market shortly after the NEO and the 737 rate was already in the 40-50/month range. With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and the MAX fiasco, going with an all-new aircraft looks a lot better, but at the time the MAX was launched, it seemed like the best option.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: In an aluminium tube
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD...
but at the time the MAX was launched, it seemed like the best option.
The A320 is now nearly 40 years old. If Boeing started a clean sheet design in 10 years they could be selling the most amazing aircraft.
But the Max is just a disaster.
It would have meant conceding nearly the entire single aisle market to Airbus for the better part of 10 year,
All your posts on this forum are spot on. I've flown 76/75 and now 73. The -800 is a compromise too far. We're flying 50 year old kit made to fit the modern day. The Max is just taking the p**s.
The A320 is now nearly 40 years old. If Boeing started a clean sheet design in 10 years they could be selling the most amazing aircraft.
But the Max is just a disaster.
The A320 is now nearly 40 years old. If Boeing started a clean sheet design in 10 years they could be selling the most amazing aircraft.
But the Max is just a disaster.
So MechEngr, explain to me how Boeing has a future, because I just don’t see it. This is not a wind up I am genuinely interested in the question. A failed Boeing would be a terrible shame
You’re aware of the enormous backlog of Max orders? Over 4000 as of 3rd quarter of last year. That’s just the Max let alone the rest of the aircraft they sell.