Telegraph: Airbus is largest aircraft manufacturer
 

Not really a surprise, but relevant news:

Quite right too. As someone else suggested: it's like comparing a BMW to a Ford.

I've owned both. I'd rather tow with the F350 and save the high-speed cornering for trips in the Beemer.

We're going to annoy the mods with these flippant remarks, so . . .

What do people think about Boeing's prospects for recovering its place in the commercial airplane market?

Nothing to boast about ...
 

When your main competitor cannot deliver its products, it is quite easy to beat him :rolleyes:
As usual, media are making headlines about a non-event that was known since the Max production was stopped ...
Whatever the outcome, this Max story is good neither for Boeing nor for Airbus.

What do people think about Boeing's prospects for recovering it's place in the commer
 

Based on the "too big to fail" principle, US politicians will not allow such a strategic business to go down the drain.
So, they will recover.
How long will it take ?
IMHO, it will depend on whether the Max can be re-certified.
If the Max is re-certified, it will be one to three years.
If not, a five to ten years timeframe looks reasonable (in this last case, they will be heavily supported by the US DoD with a big additional order of tankers).

... while protesting how unfair it is that Airbus gets a state subsidy :)

You are the voice of reason, kudos to you

Of course. I think that's part of a script all new B hires have to memorize. The whole world knows that nation states always find ways to subsidize their most important industries, and I think the complaints have become pro forma -- except for the stubborn few who insist on believing that there's actually such a thing as a "free" market.

So, llagonne66 thinks it will take Boeing 1-3 years to recover if the MAX flies again and 5-10 if it doesn't. I guess that could be right, if all those backed-up MAX orders come through in a big hurry.

With some help from the DoD, it is quite reasonable to predict that Boeing will recover. Period.
As to its place worldwide, well...

Haven’t they always had that title while the A380 was in production ? I remember similar articles in previous years where the noted the difference between the size of aircraft, and the number produced.

Boeing's plight was self-inflicted (with the help of a neutered FAA). They built an aircraft that was unsafe for Airline Operations which resulted in hundreds of fatalities.

Only Boeing can fix Boeing. But to accomplish that, Boeing will need (and will certainly be granted) US Gov subsidies and/or funding of some sort even if it is disguised as Military research program funding.

It is very unlikely that 400+ brand new B737 MAX airframes and 450 odd used B737MAX airframes will be junked due to costs involved. So eventually an FAA sponsored fix will be agreed upon by the various foreign Civil Aviation Regulatory bodies.

The FAA's previous gold-standard aircraft certification standard has also now been indelibly tarnished. That blemish will take some time to swallow for all involved.

At the moment, they are just arguing over the "price" that the USA and FAA will pay for international re-certification of the MAX and the quid pro quo involved with future cross-recognition of aircraft certification by said foreign Civil Aviation Regulatory bodies (read FAA, EASA, CAAC, etc).

There is also the impeding possible problem of how does the B777X get certified. The FAA will not want their hands "burnt" twice therefore they will want everyone to see how they certify that "new" aircraft. Not much composite on the present B777 so that plus folding wingtips could take the B777X far enough away from claiming "grandfather rights". 2020 could turn out to be an "interesting" year.

Surely not ? After all the complaints from Boeing and the US government about subsidies to Airbus that would be hypocrisy. It would be unfair competition if other countries aerospace industries have to compete with a state subsidised company, tariffs could be put in place in retaliation and complaints made to the WTO.

I recall that the FAA certified the B707.

The then Air Registration Board's chief test pilot flew it and refused to certify it claiming the rudder forces were too high for the average line pilot in the event of an outboard engine failure. He was backed by Lord Brabazon, the head of the ARB.

To gain British certification, if I recall correctly, Boeing fitted a bigger rudder which, funny enough, they retrofitted, free of charge, to aircraft already flying.

A later model had an undesirable pitch up approaching the stall. The FAA certified it, the British wouldn't. A stick pusher was fitted and, similarly to the bigger rudder, Boeing retrofitted the pusher to aircraft already flying.

Gold standard indeed.

Indeed.
And yes, this is hypocrisy.

Eventually Boeing will regain trust and will continue to sell commercial jets. That said the FAA must do its job and certify new jets independent of corporate interference. The performance by D.M. shows the arrogance of CEO when called out.

President Trump has disabled the WTO by refusing to allow the appointment of judges: Reuters on WTO which looks as though there is consistent policy here.

Forgive me if I missed an irony tag.

The B707 had to have a fairing placed at the underside rear of the fuselage to help with the excessive rudder forces before it was allowed on the british register. Other airlines demanded the same modification before delivery.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lla_N707JT.jpg

The model with the undesirable pitch up was the B747, which was also modified before being allowed on the British register.

This is how it should be done, an independent regulator with proper resources, free from commercial pressures tests and certifies new aircraft. I doubt D.P. Davies would have accepted the MAX after reviewing the MCAS system.