And conversely legacy Airbus customers are a genuine sales target for Boeing. With long overdue exciting and brand new clean burn single aisle technology.

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?

You beat me to it.
In addition the Boeing Starliner space capsule is a mess. Years behind schedule. Paid for by the public purse.

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.

Yet gobs of Boeings are still being sold, they are being filled with gobs of passengers with short term memory of MCAS and soon of doors popping off. Regulators and CEOs are who Boeing fears, not passengers who constitute the court of public opinion as soon they will purchase tickets based off cost, convenience and availability not whether it’s a Boeing, an Airbus or a Tupolev.

Didn't Boeing receive public support like serious tax reductions in Washington State and subsidies in South Carolina for the new factory? And didn't Boeing use Japanese and Italian public support for 787 contributions?

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.

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.

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...

That's pretty accurate pattern... With the introduction of the 737-900 (Next Generation), it could do nearly everything a 757 could do (except for range), and cost much less to buy. When Boeing made the decision to pull the plug on the 757, orders had dried up and the rate was down to one/month (while production officially ended in 2004, the decision was made in the aftermath of 9/11 - long lead parts mean it takes a couple years to wind down a production line). Since the 757 required a dedicated assembly line, that meant a huge amount of overhead to build one aircraft per month, while the 737 rate was approaching one aircraft per day - spreading that factory overhead cost over a much larger number of aircraft.
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.

Like father... like son...

https://www.airguide.info/boeing-737...nd-legal-woes/

TD...
 

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.

and that with hindsight would have been the best option. Now they’d be the market leader in the sector with a new narrow body selling against the NEO A320 - which underneath is not young. But a hell of a lot younger than the 73.

When listing those who have failed Boeing, it's customers and their pasengers, don't forget:

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e784df9042.jpg

Disaster, yup MCAS associated crashes were disasters. That said, Boeing has a backlog of thousands of Max 737s, don’t lose sight of its popularity with the people who buy airplanes.

Can there be an unlike button for that guy? Sanford Mc. did them no favors either.

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.

Yes, I am aware as I am aware that the financial resources of the company continues to deteriorate as the costs of the MAX debacle and the continuing 787 production Fu*k ups weigh down the company.

But, Boeing then won the competition by throwing their dummy out of the cot.