I question if some of this hyperbole. There's been no real talk among regulators of mandating much beyond current state of the art. And I can't see where the 787/777X is far behind. I can see where the 737 is far behind though.
If the above is true that means even the A220 would not cut it. And I find that very hard to believe. Maybe there's some specific human factors and control laws on the 777/787 that the FAA wants tightened up (Asiana crash comes to mind). Not the whole cockpit.
As for Airbus, I've argued before that buying the A220, let's them build commonality on that cockpit. It's not a bad plan to have in their back pocket.
A220 is a moot point, it's already certified. The genie doesn't need to go back into the bottle.
I won't speak for what the other poster wrote, but my post does contain some supposition, I think it is pretty good at using the right words to convey that. If you want to label it as hyperbole, that's up to you. Time will tell what ends up happening.
Apologies. Wasn't suggesting you were being hyperbolic! Rather that the Boeing engineer was being such. The 787 wouldn't qualify today? Come on. I could see changes in control laws and some presentation of data maybe. But I struggle to understand why any of that would mean an uncertifiable cockpit. Full glass cockpit with FBW, means most of this is a software change. I suspect something is just lost in translation here.....
May I suggest that everyone read (or reread) both the JATR and NTSB reports related to the 737Max certification and pay attention to the recommendations for the manufactures and regulators to consider in regards to realistic response times, human performance, effect of multiple alarm indications, pilot workload, etc. Most of what Boeing did was to common industry standards; which are now considered inadequate. Certain areas that have been recommended to be addressed have never had any regulatory requirements. This is almost all about the interface between the pilots and the aircraft.
The regulators are indeed talking about these issues and how to address them (the fact that these discussions are not open to the public does not mean they are not happening). They may not have proposed the actual new requirements yet... But, Boeing may have considerable foreknowledge as they are the only manufacture in the loop with the regulators at this time on these issues that I am aware of (as some of them affect 737 Max re-certification).
Now the A220 cockpit may well be considered the current "state of the art." It eliminates a series of checklist, and has some automated actions (just hit an emergency descent button - and the computers do the rest and relatively fast). That's an example of workload reduction that is possible, and that my understanding is that the 787 lacks.
Now whatever the final answer is... I have never seen regulators require anything that was not current "state of the art" or some modification of that which is obtained by using other existing known technology (based on my personal experience with my state DNR, the EPA, and the NRC). Thus, I expect that the A220 cockpit or some modest variation of it would likely be acceptable at this time.
However, do you think that the CEO of Boeing is making statements that they have to rethink basics of how Boeing controls an aircraft if they could just use a 787 based system (which I understand was their intent for the NMA). Or does he already know that will at best be a challenge to get past the regulators, if not unlikely or impossible with what they know.
So read the JATR and NTSB recommendations to the manufactures and regulators for future certifications... and ask yourself can you really accomplish that with most existing systems. Can you with the 787 and A3XX control systems and cockpit layout reduce workload and eliminate many distractions, and can you simplify pilot response? Looking forward as well how do you build a system with a future provision for remote piloting in at least certain emergencies.
Now I don't know for sure what my friend has been told is in fact factual. Everything they have told me in the past has checked out in the end (and their position within Boeing is where they are knowledgeable on most things related to the NMA) They also have never told me if the NMA was an ovid 2 isle or a more round single isle, weather they had decided carbon fiber or metal, and many other things. They did talk with me about many of the things Boeing tested and looked at as part of the NMA project (leaving me guessing); but, I suspect I can detect hints and biases.
Since the first word I had of this issue was on this thread - and attributed to the CEO.... I tend to believe that the information I was provided was accurate (that there is at least significant concern that the 787/777 based cockpit systems would not meet the expected standards for clean sheet aircraft). There is no reason for a CEO to talk about new control concepts and controls if they could reasonably use the existing systems.
Aviation Safety had changed many things that were considered by many to work well.... until forced to do better.
It appears to me that the regulators are taking the JATR and NTSB reports, and other pilot performance studies seriously - and asking for "Better" to improve overall aviation safety in the future.
Have a great day,