Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20580
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:23 pm

9Patch wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:

Spot on!

CFRP barrels of different shape or diameter now only require a different mandrel, the bots can deal with a wide range of sizes. A design freedom with cool possibilities.


But can you spin and autoclave 60 CRFP barrels per month?
I recall reading somewhere that CRFP that will cure without being baked in an autoclave is a possibility.

MC-21 is the launch airframe for non-autoclaved CFRP.

https://www.compositesworld.com/article ... tes-future

From that link: "The two biggest challenges, particularly in relation to aerospace manufacture, are consistent fiber wet-out and porosity, the latter of which must be less than 2% to meet OEM strength and stiffness requirements."

The downside of autoclaves is the cost to reach mass production. There ceases to be an economy of scale for that one process as the cost per autoclave doesn't drop after putting in 4 to 6.

There is a learning curve on manufacturing tolerances. If Boeing tried to mass produce a new CFRP wing at the levels of a narrowbody, there would be a 3 year learning curve to consistently produce parts within drawing (same with Airbus, it is just where we are in CFRP technology in maintaining tolerances.). There are multiple reasons the A350 didn't ramp up production faster and the extreme example of the 787.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:31 pm

StuckinCMHland wrote:
Yossarian22 wrote:
Aviation737 wrote:
Because multiple airlines didn't want to wait for a new clean sheet design. Especially Southwest and American which threatened to switch to Airbus. Boeing didn't have a choice. They could either design an entirely clean sheet design and potentially lose their major customers to their rival or do a simple upgrade to their existing aircraft that will be just as good as their rival. The math says that the MAX was and is the best decision for Boeing to combat against the NEO


So instead, they killed 300 people? They had a choice, they rushed to build a flawed plane, and plenty of innocent people died as a result.


Are you seriously believing that? Even if you somehow believe an evil group of beancounters mandated the design, ordered corners to be cut, and is some kind of evil conglomerate looking only for short-term profit you can't seriously believe Boeing intentionally made a 'flawed' plane that would kill people. We're not talking about Stalin and the purges or Mao and the Cultural Revolution here, we are talking about a series of human beings making a mistake or mistakes. It seems from what you say you think Boeing is a totalitarian government instead of a business.

The investigation is not over yet, there are other people or organizations that could be at fault as well, not just Boeing, and the people who work at Boeing and specifically on the Max have to be sick and horrified over this. People's lives will be ruined over these accidents and innocent people and families will pay a big price for other people's errors. It doesn't make up for those who died, but enough with such over the top language and accusations. Before you write such things put yourself in their shoes for a minute.


Do you want to keep up the fiction that nobody at Boeing new what they were doing, when they designed MCAS depending on one sensor only, because it was that unlikely a sensor would fail? Do you want to keep up the fiction that nobody at Boeing realized what they were doing when difference training was cut to a minimum, MCAS kept hidden from the pilots, simulators designed for not showing MCAS and AFAIK not able to simulate what happens when you get an AoA failure?
EASA seems to have voiced concerns regarding the MCAS implication and asked for an resolute training scheme for the 737MAX. Boeing seems to not have reacted to that.

Nothing of the above is depending on finishing the investigation of the two accidents. But we even have for both accidents the preliminary information that MCAS was involved.

Yes FAA and EASA have to carry the responsibility for having certified the 737MAX, but that does not keep Boeing off the hook.
 
Olddog
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:41 pm

To make a long story short, after the 737 Jurassic, classic and NG, the 737 Zombie was a step too far.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:46 pm

Bradin wrote:
"Fools rush in where angels dare to tread."

One simply doesn't design a product and hope that airlines will come. There has to be a demand. It has to meet airline requirements. It has to meet customer requirements. Otherwise people will avoid the plane or the airline.


Demand is there and always will be. The question is do you meet it with an old airframe or take the leap?
Funny. It only took one pandemic for those who argue endlessly about natural selection to stop believing in natural selection.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:58 pm

Geoff1947 wrote:
Please not the 757 argument again. Boeing’s worst selling jet airline model is not relevant to this discussion about the mainstream of the industry. The 757 line was shut down because it couldn’t be sold. Think of it as the A380 of the narowbody sector.

Geoff


The 757 is one of the greatest aircraft ever made. It was a perfect aircraft in a world of 737s and MD-80’s offering previously unattainable range and capacity for a narrow body. It was the perfect transcon bird. Airfield capability remains unmatched. The A321s demonstrate the need for such an aircraft, the problem is slapping a new engine on a 757 wasn’t going to be efficient enough, so it died just like the 767. Unsuccessful? Laughable.
Funny. It only took one pandemic for those who argue endlessly about natural selection to stop believing in natural selection.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:06 pm

planecane wrote:
If Boeing only sells 5000 MAXs and spent $2 billion to develop it, that's $400,000 per plane. If they spent $10 billion on a clean sheet and sold 7000 of them, it's over $1.4 million per plane. To get ROI, the airlines would have to be willing to spend over $1 million more per plane.

At the time the MAX vs clean sheet decision was made, it was determined that the clean sheet couldn't be enough cheaper to operate for airlines to pay the additional cost.

It's that simple. Same reason Airbus did the NEO instead of a clean sheet.


Only 7,000? Think longer term product cycle. They’ve built over 10,000 737s and they’d probably all sell 20,000 of the new aircraft over the program lifecycle, maybe more as such an aircraft would pretty much be the ultimate narrowbody. They just wanted to get a product to market faster to be competitive with the Neo, period. They could have slashed NG prices, print money for a couple of years and built a new bird. The MAX is a shortsighted beancounter decision after a bumbled 787 program. It is one of the biggest missteps in Boeing history.

BlueSky1976 wrote:
Boeing had the new narrowbody in development farther down than today's NMA. It was nearing authority to offer decision. EIS was planned for 2018.

Then, American issued RFP for replacement of 300 old aircraft, Airbus was winning it, Boeing panicked and rushed 737 reengine to meet 2016 EIS. The rest is history.

Southwest would have bought the new Boeing narrowbody. I'm sure the backlog would approach 8000 orders for it at this point in time.

737 MAX will live in history as flawed and rushed design, forced by beancounters, stockholders and panicking Boeing management - whether you like it or not.


Yup. And sometimes you just need to take a step back from a 300 aircraft order so you can sell 3,000 later and make them feel sorry for their decision to be pushy with your product.

Boeing needs to get their shit together. They’re too focused on what Airbus is doing and not focused enough on what Boeing needs to be doing, and that is replacing a 60 year old tube that’s had multiple wings and engine configurations slapped on it like Frankenstein.
Funny. It only took one pandemic for those who argue endlessly about natural selection to stop believing in natural selection.
 
Vladex
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:17 pm

BlueSky1976 wrote:
Boeing had the new narrowbody in development farther down than today's NMA. It was nearing authority to offer decision. EIS was planned for 2018.

Then, American issued RFP for replacement of 300 old aircraft, Airbus was winning it, Boeing panicked and rushed 737 reengine to meet 2016 EIS. The rest is history.

Southwest would have bought the new Boeing narrowbody. I'm sure the backlog would approach 8000 orders for it at this point in time.

737 MAX will live in history as flawed and rushed design, forced by beancounters, stockholders and panicking Boeing management - whether you like it or not.


It's outdated and compromised design , not rushed. They knew what they were doing they just didn't care about long term and far away consequences.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 915
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:37 pm

lightsaber wrote:
It scares the hell out of both Airbus and Boeing to completely replace their narrowbodies. Both have grown to be greater endevours than most nation's gnp. I'm serious. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I believe the total 737 or A320 efforts, including maintenance, is more billions of Dollar/Euro/Yen/Peso/Rupee/Yuan/Pound/Lira/Frank/Ruble per year than the country at the median GNP.

Lightsaber


Given this, how possible is it that the opportunity cost is doing so is simply too high? I know that Boeing Marine was a bust, but that much wealth could most certainly find a better ROI somewhere.
 
Bradin
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:12 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:47 pm

DL717 wrote:
Bradin wrote:
"Fools rush in where angels dare to tread."

One simply doesn't design a product and hope that airlines will come. There has to be a demand. It has to meet airline requirements. It has to meet customer requirements. Otherwise people will avoid the plane or the airline.


Demand is there and always will be. The question is do you meet it with an old airframe or take the leap?


I don't exactly agree that demand is 'always' there. There are factors that impact demand, such as the price tag, cost savings, capabilities, etc.. I'm thinking most airlines felt the cost savings and benefits did not outweigh the price tag, and the demand was much lower than expected.
 
User avatar
rikkus67
Posts: 1342
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2000 11:34 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:22 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
rikkus67 wrote:
wrongwayup wrote:

Ahem... A220 would like a word


AHEM...CSERIES would like a word. ;-) Poor thing was stamped on, but at least not out of the picture (Canadian aviation history did not fully repeat itself), despite its new clothes...

Well, CSeries was just a marketing name; which is now retired and replaced with A220. They still carry the BD-500 designation on the TCDS, which is what matters to the authorities.
Happens all the time.


I'm just glad the little plane that could, still can. AVRO Canada Jetliner, anyone?
AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5649
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 10:29 pm

9Patch wrote:
The 737 replacement will be designed and built in Brazil.

Not likely. There is more than just the cost of labor involved. While the Brazilians have shown that they can build fine planes, I do not think they are ready to design and build the plane that will be the backbone of Boeing for the next few decades. I doubt that Brazil has the infrastructure to support building 60+ per month, anyway.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
WBM
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:13 pm

SEPilot wrote:
The basic problem for both Boeing and Airbus is essentially they each have a tiger by the tail. They are both selling more NB aircraft than they can deliver, and ramping up production as fast as they can. And the revenues that they get from selling them are vital for their continued operation. Designing a replacement will be a massively expensive project that will yield only modest improvements in efficiency, since most efficiency gains come from the engines. Then comes the problem of ramping up production of the new model to meet the demand, while tapering off production of the old. This whole scenario is so much easier with widebodies because of their lower production rate. The 787, for example, was intended to replace the 767, but orders for 767s had slowed to a trickle. And Boeing could survive that. But it is hard to imagine a scenario where Boeing could survive 737 orders slowing to a trickle AND Boeing having the resources to design and build a replacement. That is the logistics side of it; and then there is the business case. Realistically, if they think they can do it for $10 billion, it’s going to take $20 billion, and they know it. Presumably part of the design goal will be (has to be) lower cost to manufacture. But that $20 billion has to be recovered, and recovered over a few thousand sales, not millions. How much more will airlines be willing to pay for how much gain in operating costs? And how much lost production will be involved in the transition? Those are the unanswered questions that are holding up both Boeing and Airbus in launching replacements. Assuming that Boeing’s NMA is in fact a stalking horse for a new NB, that will give them a leg up on the race for a replacement. And if they jump, Airbus will be forced to follow, just as Boeing was forced to follow when Airbus launched the NEO.


I think you really nailed the issue with regard to 737 replacement. I think people really underestimate what a challenge replacement is. For convenience I will just talk about the 737, but it is also true of the A320.

For Boeing the 737 is it's most successful product, and an absolute cash cow. Announcing a replacement won't kill the cash cow, but it will announce to the world that the cow is headed to slaughter sooner rather than later. It is hard enough to go from zero to ten frames a month as with any other project. It is orders of magnitude harder to go zero to sixty. Meanwhile any hiccup in the process is also orders of magnitude more expensive.

For both manufactures narrow body replacement in an unbelievable challenge. That is why I think both manufactures are looking for ways to attack the problem from multiple angles.
 
tropical
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:04 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:27 pm

Vladex wrote:
BlueSky1976 wrote:
Boeing had the new narrowbody in development farther down than today's NMA. It was nearing authority to offer decision. EIS was planned for 2018.

Then, American issued RFP for replacement of 300 old aircraft, Airbus was winning it, Boeing panicked and rushed 737 reengine to meet 2016 EIS. The rest is history.

Southwest would have bought the new Boeing narrowbody. I'm sure the backlog would approach 8000 orders for it at this point in time.

737 MAX will live in history as flawed and rushed design, forced by beancounters, stockholders and panicking Boeing management - whether you like it or not.


It's outdated and compromised design , not rushed. They knew what they were doing they just didn't care about long term and far away consequences.

I don’t know if you saw the recent newspaper article (in the NYT I think) detailing Boeing’s mindset at the time. Very telling.

Nobody likes losing a sale to your fierce rival of course, but losing the AA deal to Airbus would have never caused significant or lasting damage- just a bit of hurt pride. It seems astonishingly unprofessional and immature for a company as quality-driven and financially strong as Boeing to compromise (or certainly risk to compromise) the quality of one of its products and rush a job just out of pride and emotion.
 
9Patch
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:10 am

SEPilot wrote:
9Patch wrote:
The 737 replacement will be designed and built in Brazil.

Not likely. There is more than just the cost of labor involved. While the Brazilians have shown that they can build fine planes, I do not think they are ready to design and build the plane that will be the backbone of Boeing for the next few decades. I doubt that Brazil has the infrastructure to support building 60+ per month, anyway.



But couldn't the combination of Boeing and their new acquisition, Embraer (assuming it's completed) pull this off?
What infrastructure is Brazil lacking?
Could it not be built?
Aren't we likely to see whole sections of this plane built in various countries and sent to a FAL somewhere?
 
9Patch
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:13 am

9Patch wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
9Patch wrote:
The 737 replacement will be designed and built in Brazil.

Not likely. There is more than just the cost of labor involved. While the Brazilians have shown that they can build fine planes, I do not think they are ready to design and build the plane that will be the backbone of Boeing for the next few decades. I doubt that Brazil has the infrastructure to support building 60+ per month, anyway.



Could Embraer have built the A220?
If not, couldn't the combination of Boeing and their new acquisition, Embraer (assuming it's completed) pull this off?
What infrastructure is Brazil lacking?
Can the infrastructure be built?
Aren't we likely to see components or even whole sections of this plane built in various countries and sent to a FAL somewhere?
 
Hornberger
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:34 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:28 am

Boeing builds the NSA, which is 10% more efficient than the Neo.

Airlines start heavily favour the NSA over the Neo. Airbus responds by building the Neo replacement. The Neo replacement is equal to the NSA.

The NSA and and Neo replacement have equal sales. Both Boeing and Airbus have spent $10 - 20bn, and end up with the same market share as they had with the 737 and A320.
 
wrongwayup
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:24 am

Hornberger wrote:
Boeing builds the NSA, which is 10% more efficient than the Neo.

Airlines start heavily favour the NSA over the Neo. Airbus responds by building the Neo replacement. The Neo replacement is equal to the NSA.

The NSA and and Neo replacement have equal sales. Both Boeing and Airbus have spent $10 - 20bn, and end up with the same market share as they had with the 737 and A320.


And the beneficiaries are the travelling public. Isn't competition great?
 
Yossarian22
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:25 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:36 am

StuckinCMHland wrote:
Yossarian22 wrote:
Aviation737 wrote:
Because multiple airlines didn't want to wait for a new clean sheet design. Especially Southwest and American which threatened to switch to Airbus. Boeing didn't have a choice. They could either design an entirely clean sheet design and potentially lose their major customers to their rival or do a simple upgrade to their existing aircraft that will be just as good as their rival. The math says that the MAX was and is the best decision for Boeing to combat against the NEO


So instead, they killed 300 people? They had a choice, they rushed to build a flawed plane, and plenty of innocent people died as a result.


Are you seriously believing that? Even if you somehow believe an evil group of beancounters mandated the design, ordered corners to be cut, and is some kind of evil conglomerate looking only for short-term profit you can't seriously believe Boeing intentionally made a 'flawed' plane that would kill people. We're not talking about Stalin and the purges or Mao and the Cultural Revolution here, we are talking about a series of human beings making a mistake or mistakes. It seems from what you say you think Boeing is a totalitarian government instead of a business.

The investigation is not over yet, there are other people or organizations that could be at fault as well, not just Boeing, and the people who work at Boeing and specifically on the Max have to be sick and horrified over this. People's lives will be ruined over these accidents and innocent people and families will pay a big price for other people's errors. It doesn't make up for those who died, but enough with such over the top language and accusations. Before you write such things put yourself in their shoes for a minute.


I’m unsure why you are twisting my words, I guess your agenda needs somebody to demonize. Did Boeing intentionally kill people? Obviously not. Was Boeing negligent and wreckless due to pressure from the competitive landscape? That seems like an obvious yes. If airlines had more than one other choice, if other aircraft manufacturers besides Airbus still existed, I think Boeing’s long term survival would be a question after the 787 battery fires and the Max.

Again, they rushed a plane to the market, a plane that probably shouldn’t have been built in the first place, to compete with their competitor. Profits over safety has been a part of every industry. Why did the Big 3 in Detroit hate Ralph Nader? It is why strong independent public regulations organizations are needed, as well as prison terms for those who kept the MCAS system a secret.
 
maxudaskin
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:33 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:48 am

ELBOB wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

If WN had handed Airbus a deposit you had better believe they would have moved heaven and hell to get them some A320neo's fast.


How? It's simply not physically possible without building another final assembly line, staffing it, establishing logistics... All for a couple of hundred sales out of thousands.

And so what, anyway? Plenty of other airlines would have waited for the Boeing cleansheet. Plenty have nice new 737NGs and no need for a Max or Neo for another 20 years.


Airbus is already underway to increase production to 60 A320s (family) per month globally. That's across Tolouse, Mobile, and Tianjin.

Considering that Boeing was at an output of 47 per month in 2017, I think that Airbus is definitely in the running and would have an easier time expanding their lines than Boeing.
 
vahancrazy
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 5:54 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:51 am

Hei,
I read all thread which provides some useful info.

It was mentioned several times that Boeing /Airbus did not need a new NB design because they could improve the existing product.
This would save billions from development costs for them plus introduce a more economical airplane for the airline and reduce the training cost for pilots thanks to grandfathering Vs new model training.

Such idea makes sense. Therefore the doubt is: why such math should apply to the NB but not to the WB? For example, why Boeing developed the 787 instead of doing for the 767 the same it did for the 737?
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:47 am

Bradin wrote:
DL717 wrote:
Bradin wrote:
"Fools rush in where angels dare to tread."

One simply doesn't design a product and hope that airlines will come. There has to be a demand. It has to meet airline requirements. It has to meet customer requirements. Otherwise people will avoid the plane or the airline.


Demand is there and always will be. The question is do you meet it with an old airframe or take the leap?


I don't exactly agree that demand is 'always' there. There are factors that impact demand, such as the price tag, cost savings, capabilities, etc.. I'm thinking most airlines felt the cost savings and benefits did not outweigh the price tag, and the demand was much lower than expected.


Demand for narrows is always there. You’d have to be under a rock to suggest otherwise.
Funny. It only took one pandemic for those who argue endlessly about natural selection to stop believing in natural selection.
 
Bradin
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:12 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:10 am

DL717 wrote:
Bradin wrote:
DL717 wrote:

Demand is there and always will be. The question is do you meet it with an old airframe or take the leap?


I don't exactly agree that demand is 'always' there. There are factors that impact demand, such as the price tag, cost savings, capabilities, etc.. I'm thinking most airlines felt the cost savings and benefits did not outweigh the price tag, and the demand was much lower than expected.


Demand for narrows is always there. You’d have to be under a rock to suggest otherwise.


Demand for narrowbodies are there, but the demand for a clean sheet narrowbody may not be.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:15 am

vahancrazy wrote:
Hei,
I read all thread which provides some useful info.

It was mentioned several times that Boeing /Airbus did not need a new NB design because they could improve the existing product.
This would save billions from development costs for them plus introduce a more economical airplane for the airline and reduce the training cost for pilots thanks to grandfathering Vs new model training.

Such idea makes sense. Therefore the doubt is: why such math should apply to the NB but not to the WB? For example, why Boeing developed the 787 instead of doing for the 767 the same it did for the 737?


In that specific case because the 767 had a 7 abreast optimized fuselage, which has an efficiency disadvantage over 8 abreast and 9 abreast. So the 787 went from a comfortable wide 7 abreast to a narrow 9 abreast, which gives a big efficiency gain.

On a single aisle 6 abreast is the best you can do and A320/737 already use it.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9431
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:37 am

Yossarian22 wrote:
Even if you somehow believe an evil group of beancounters mandated the design, ordered corners to be cut, and is some kind of evil conglomerate looking only for short-term profit you can't seriously believe Boeing intentionally made a 'flawed' plane that would kill people.


Safety took a third or fourth level standing. There is no "they tried valiantly but stumbled over some unresolved issue".

"Intentionally" does not derive from "being forced" ( how that actually ) to upgrade the 737 beyond capabilities
but to absolute botch the job via a disinterested design solution and actively subverting certification
and mandated information processes to keep MCAS out of sight.
Superficially for just being able to boast that the MAX counter to the NEO does not need simulator transition training.

Afaics there is lots of "intention" on the path to 350++ dead people.
Murphy is an optimist
 
timh4000
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:14 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:13 am

Pilots and other industry workers, their input would be interesting to hear. Personally I see the amount of speculation as to who is buying/leasing what, what's getting upgraded, what should be built, is getting built... as a average middle of the road 3x a year (normally) flyer, it seems to me the major airlines at least have a pretty good handle on what they are putting up in the air and making lots of money doing so. I would even venture to say most of the existing 380s and 747 flights are making money.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:48 am

vahancrazy wrote:
Such idea makes sense. Therefore the doubt is: why such math should apply to the NB but not to the WB? For example, why Boeing developed the 787 instead of doing for the 767 the same it did for the 737?


Because there was a step change in efficiency of around 20 % available in the widebodies 767 vs 787. The same step change is not available in narrowbodies, at least using currently available technologies.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9431
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:22 pm

Finn350 wrote:
vahancrazy wrote:
Such idea makes sense. Therefore the doubt is: why such math should apply to the NB but not to the WB? For example, why Boeing developed the 787 instead of doing for the 767 the same it did for the 737?


Because there was a step change in efficiency of around 20 % available in the widebodies 767 vs 787. The same step change is not available in narrowbodies, at least using currently available technologies.


solely engines and scaling wasn't it? ... and "Step Change" ?

Efficiency wise the [email protected] replicated a 1993 A330 perfomance plus some engine gains.

The same gain from engines is available for WB as well as NB craft. See NEO and MAX.
There are no step changes available for the basic airframe.
FBW craft can follow little gains here and there much better than
the WWII state of the art on aircraft control frames ( 737, 767, .. )
767 and 757 had the downside of not bringing the gift of significantly more relaxed certification requirements.
That let the 737 persist while 757 and 767 lost competitiveness.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:38 pm

The obvious answer... Nobody really wants s new commodity single isle aircraft. Just re-enigining older designs provides almost all the efficiency of something new...and avoids all the re-training of pilots, maintenance people...and capital costs.

That being said...anything based on 1960s era aircraft, patched over with kludge reworking, needs to go, even if it is more efficient. Boeing needs to move now on a NSA, even if no great efficiency gain is to be had.
Always take the Red Eye if possible

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos