The MAX fiasco means Boeing isn't launching anything for another year or two at least. And whatever they launch isn't going to enter service for another 4-5 years after that. So why not take the time to mature a lot of tech, see where engines are going and work on scaling up new production techniques, etc. All in addition to delivering a lot of the backlog that is there.
There's also something to be said for building up a war chest. Especially for an OEM that doesn't have a strong defence business. Having 10 billion Euros in the bank on reserve to be deployed is a good thing.
As per our NMA thread, it appears Boeing is convinced the regulators will require a next generation cockpit for any future clean sheets, and that will be the long pole in the tent with regard to launching a new product.
Advantage Airbus, they have certified cockpits from A220 through A350 and so they can "grandfather" for a very long time while Boeing carries the burden of bashing out what the regulators deem a next generation cockpit to be.
I expect all those threads against grandfathering to go very quiet in the near future.
To be honest, I'm hoping grandfathering is more or less scrapped.
Why should safety be compromised* just because it was deemed good enough decades ago?
*particularly given amendments to the FARs/JARs typically come off the back off accidents.
If something meets the current regulations, fine, let it remain unchanged. But, if something doesn't meet the current regulations - it needs changed. I think its an absolute farce that any airframer is allowed to play semantics and games with passenger's safety in the interests of their own bottom line.
Not all grandfathering is equal. There's very little that an A320 would be deviating from. On the flip side, the 737 is the only airplane in the Boeing line up without some kind of centralized alerting system (EICAS/ECAM). So when Boeing says that regulators may ask them for a "next gen cockpit", it's looking more like it's only "next gen" for Boeing. This is the kind of grandfathering that disappears.https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ew-alerts/
I can't think of any major deviation from current standards on the A320. If anybody can, I'd love to read about it.
There is stuff that could be mandated like force feedback control columns, synthetic vision, etc. But I've not yet seen any indication that some of this stuff would be imposed. I think it's more that regulators will expect any aircraft to implement what every other modern airliner has these days: full redundant FBW, centralized alerting, etc.