Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Cdydatzigs
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 3:31 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 01, 2021 5:31 pm

Noshow wrote:
The A320-family, while constantly boeing updated, is aging. This leaves room for some clean sheet from Boeing.


This right here. As soon as Boeing debuts a clean sheet 737 replacement, Airbus would now be the one pushing new narrow bodies that are based on a 40-year old design.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26277
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 01, 2021 5:37 pm

Cdydatzigs wrote:
Noshow wrote:
The A320-family, while constantly boeing updated, is aging. This leaves room for some clean sheet from Boeing.

This right here. As soon as Boeing debuts a clean sheet 737 replacement, Airbus would now be the one pushing new narrow bodies that are based on a 40-year old design.

Feel free to be more specific and suggest areas where the "40 year old design" can be improved. I gave a few guesses earlier, but don't think they are game changers nor are things that could not be retrofitted if the advantages of doing so outweighed the disadvantages. Keep in mind it's not like today's A32x is unchanged from the A320-100 of the 80s.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
JonesNL
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:12 pm

Revelation wrote:
morrisond wrote:
You also articulated exactly what I was trying to say about a potential new wing 322. It would be kind of shocking if it did not have to be done on a new type certificate or with a full certification effort as the scale of changes needed to accommodate a new larger wing plus possibly a higher MTOW, new gear - new tail, are about as extensive in terms of structural changes as Boeing made to 77W/L to make the 777X.

I believe there have been very various comments/opinions on here and in the media that that scale of change would never be allowed again without a full certification effort. I then made the logical/illogical leap that if the A322 is effectively a new type then no way would the 1980's cockpit be allowed. The systems changes would have to be extensive and by that point you might as well go cleansheet. Boeing also changed a lot of systems on the 777X.

I think the only thing that may pass muster now and be certified as a derivative without a full certification would be something like a simple stretch. Something like an A322 but with the existing cockpit/systems/wing/gear/tail and MTOW. I can see that happening if it's only 12 seats. However, it would not be that competitive with a clean sheet Boeing response and still take at 4-5 years.

So I agree I don't think it's as bleak for Boeing as many are making it out. I highly doubt that the envisioned new wing A322 can be done as fast or easily as people think in the new regulatory regime. It could possibly be allowed by EASA but the FAA would never allow it. Boeing's lobbyists and Congress would ensure that.

If Boeing's FBW system isn't good enough for a new type then the A320's surely isn't.

In any case given the scale of changes on the 777X I don't think it should ever have been allowed to be certificated as a derivative and should have been clean sheet certification effort from day 1 - which if the FAA had any balls and insisted on that may have caused Boeing to do the simpler big wing (or at least higher MTOW version of the 787) - the 787-11/12 using the same systems. Or given that the 787 wing is supposedly good for 280T - higher thrust engines/new gear maybe new longer tips could have gotten them to an -11 length with a nice range (call it 789 range, A351 Capacity) - much like 777E to 777W, or A359 to A351, and an -10 with range/capacity about the same as the A359.

It is praise worthy that you are being consistent in saying that 777x shouldn't have been allowed as a derivative, but that's not what happened in the real world. It was allowed and as such it has now set a precedent, one that will be difficult to ignore should Airbus choose to do a similar project like the A322 that has been suggested here and in the aviation media.

I also have pointed out the FAA statements on next generation cockpit tech and Boeing CEO's response to them, but I think they will apply for the next generation clean sheets rather than 777X or A322. Maybe they will get a lot more regulatory attention than what they saw on their last project akin to what 777X is now getting, but that should all be for the good.

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Boeing failures in business line after business line does not seem to grab the attention it should. New fine payouts for drones, inexcusable rocket software failures, 767 tanker failures (I am uncertain how much of that was Boeing and how much unrealistic requirements from the USAF) also people going to prison over bidding crimes. The long term financial failures of the 787 (the plane is great and will continue to sell at a profit, but doubt program accounting will ever show a profit for a long time), minor financial failures for the 748 and 77X (but both good planes), and disastrously failing in the MAX, incorporating bad long term strategy, poor design, and tragic crashes. The MAX likely will recover and the 8 is stellar. The military jet trainer may hold some technology and manufacturing key processes that could point to the way out of all of this. *

Boeing desperately needs another great success in the civil market. Something bigger than the MAX 8 seems to be the space. Can Boeing afford it? Will the board let them? Can they for sure eke out some net profit? Another question, can the existing back log and future orders of existing models pay off most of the debt?

I have not documented and provided links for this. All of it can be sourced from the Seattle Times and other threads on this site.

I think your comments are negative but fair. I myself am more negative where it comes to Boeing these days. They have been making a lot of mistakes and they have not found a good way to explain them. In fact they've been downright evasive. They keep doubling down on the evasion strategy and expecting people to just trust they know what they are doing, while they keep making the kinds of mistakes that reduce or destroy the trust they've built up over the decades. It's not to the point where I worry about getting on a Boeing airplane, but I can see why other more sensitive people do. I can also see why customers would not want to be early adopters of their next clean sheet. There's really no evidence that suggests they will pull it off without some major painful shortcomings that the customer will have to work through, and Boeing's evasive strategy suggests they'll protect their reputation while making the customer deal with damage to their reputation more or less on their own.


There was an article on Alphaseeking showing that problems are not only in Commercial Aerospace. Orders for defense business where down by the billions(30%) yoy since 2019. Sadly the whole company seems infected with the disease of making the wrong long term calls...
 
morrisond
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:27 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
brindabella wrote:

I started at the end of the thread then went back to the start & then regretted not starting at the start!
Sorry for repetition.

Yep, Rev makes a great "Devil's Advocate".

But it's not quite so black.

The A32xx is now also "frozen in time".
IMHO the A322 getting a lovely new CFRP wing without being forced to build what would amount to
a new type is extremely unlikely. Then the subject of a 2021-compliant Flight Deck would perforce also raise it's ugly head.
Maybe AB could have fitted on a new wing on to an A322 - no problems - before BA had to undertake those (agonizing) years of the FAA/EASA/others taking their own sweet time to come to their conclusions, but not now.


Matter of fact, given the stakes at issue, I find myself thinking that the basic equation has not changed:

A) STAND-ALONE NMA? :shakehead: :white:
Business case fails.

B) JOINTLY-DESIGNED NMA/NB FAMILIES SHARING ADVANCED DIGITAL DESIGN AND PRODUCTION?

:checkmark:


cheers

PS - my earlier post about a joint design project for the NMA/737 replacement always envisaged 3 wings across the two families.
Sound extravagant?
Not if you are optimising across two families with ultimately 6+ members, from say 130-260 seats and 1,000-6,000 NM.
Competitive in all segments.

And across thousands and thousands of frames over say 30 years.
In short, my conclusion is that the NMA/NB solution is still the one.

Post on Strategic advantage follows.


That's a very good summation.

Whether or not it's one cross section or two or two wings or three the next Boeing product family needs to cover that range.

You also articulated exactly what I was trying to say about a potential new wing 322. It would be kind of shocking if it did not have to be done on a new type certificate or with a full certification effort as the scale of changes needed to accommodate a new larger wing plus possibly a higher MTOW, new gear - new tail, are about as extensive in terms of structural changes as Boeing made to 77W/L to make the 777X.

I believe there have been very various comments/opinions on here and in the media that that scale of change would never be allowed again without a full certification effort. I then made the logical/illogical leap that if the A322 is effectively a new type then no way would the 1980's cockpit be allowed. The systems changes would have to be extensive and by that point you might as well go cleansheet. Boeing also changed a lot of systems on the 777X.

I think the only thing that may pass muster now and be certified as a derivative without a full certification would be something like a simple stretch. Something like an A322 but with the existing cockpit/systems/wing/gear/tail and MTOW. I can see that happening if it's only 12 seats. However, it would not be that competitive with a clean sheet Boeing response and still take at 4-5 years.

So I agree I don't think it's as bleak for Boeing as many are making it out. I highly doubt that the envisioned new wing A322 can be done as fast or easily as people think in the new regulatory regime. It could possibly be allowed by EASA but the FAA would never allow it. Boeing's lobbyists and Congress would ensure that.

I think the talk is not about the scale o the changes but rather the scale of the oversight by the regulator. Is there evidence that this occurred at airbus too?
morrisond wrote:

If Boeing's FBW system isn't good enough for a new type then the A320's surely isn't.

Who says Boeing’s FBW system isn’t good enough? And even if it isn’t the differences go beyond level of technology and in to the design philosophy. Other then fanboys trying to win points I can’t see either philosophy needing any changes.
morrisond wrote:

In any case given the scale of changes on the 777X I don't think it should ever have been allowed to be certificated as a derivative and should have been clean sheet certification effort from day 1 - which if the FAA had any balls and insisted on that may have caused Boeing to do the simpler big wing (or at least higher MTOW version of the 787) - the 787-11/12 using the same systems. Or given that the 787 wing is supposedly good for 280T - higher thrust engines/new gear maybe new longer tips could have gotten them to an -11 length with a nice range (call it 789 range, A351 Capacity) - much like 777E to 777W, or A359 to A351, and an -10 with range/capacity about the same as the A359.


So airbus would find it too much to do a stretch and a new wing for the A322 because of certification requirements but Boeing could do new wing and stretch on a 787? Lol, is that because of magic carbon?

‘Grandafathering’ rules were fine, the issue is that too much trust was handed to the OEM. Now a lot of things are being checked after the fact because the FAA were caught napping and Boeing were caught supplying comfy beds to nap in.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I didn't say half of what you say I said above. The 787-11/12 would probably have been allowed back at 777x inception as a derivative especially as it would have have had the same systems. The A320 might have a lot tougher time now if it has to have a new cockpit.

From 2175301 above:

"The FAA told Boeing that any new clean-sheet design aircraft would need an improved cockpit based on the lessons learned from the 737Max investigation, and none of the existing approved Boeing cockpits were adequate. That was a big hit to the NMA project which had been delayed for board presentation and approval due to the 737Max issues; and with a added delay caused by serious rethinking and redesign of the cockpit and change in CEO's the NMA program was sent back to the study phase and the pre-production NMA team was largely disbanded (although I understand that Boeing started an advanced cockpit team). That was actually fortunate timing for Boeing given the Covid-19 crises."
 
Ertro
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:44 pm

How old is that quote about FAA and cockpit standards? Is it directly from FAA or is it some interpretation what some journalist heard some Boeing executive saying about what somebody (who?) had told Boeing (same or different person from Boeing?) So is this perhaps a fourth hand rumour from a year ago and nothing since?

I mean there have been new plane designs started or considered to be started from many companies around the world and for example some company in Brazil would very much like know what kind of cockpit they would need to put in their new cleansheet design that they are about to start designing and that one press quote might not be adequate for them. They would need to have details what the new regulations exactly are.

If all we have is that one quote from a year ago and there are not at least very active cross-industry committees working with details which somebody would have certainly heard about we can assume that this cockpit problem was some misunderstanding somewhere and nothing is coming out from it.

Or how is it. I don't know. This is just a big mystery.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:50 pm

morrisond wrote:
From 2175301 above:

"The FAA told Boeing that any new clean-sheet design aircraft would need an improved cockpit based on the lessons learned from the 737Max investigation, and none of the existing approved Boeing cockpits were adequate. That was a big hit to the NMA project which had been delayed for board presentation and approval due to the 737Max issues; and with a added delay caused by serious rethinking and redesign of the cockpit and change in CEO's the NMA program was sent back to the study phase and the pre-production NMA team was largely disbanded (although I understand that Boeing started an advanced cockpit team). That was actually fortunate timing for Boeing given the Covid-19 crises."


I don't quite see how you bring Airbus into this.
And it is EASA's job to see to Airbus certification being acceptable.

Except you expect the FAA to work in Boeing's favor and make it "difficult" for Airbus.
That has been the FAA's hobby : leaning on Airbus. ( some interesting stuff in the A380 book around )
But that may have added to Airbus designs being the better solutions. no cop outs.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26277
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 01, 2021 7:39 pm

Ertro wrote:
How old is that quote about FAA and cockpit standards? Is it directly from FAA or is it some interpretation what some journalist heard some Boeing executive saying about what somebody (who?) had told Boeing (same or different person from Boeing?) So is this perhaps a fourth hand rumour from a year ago and nothing since?

I mean there have been new plane designs started or considered to be started from many companies around the world and for example some company in Brazil would very much like know what kind of cockpit they would need to put in their new cleansheet design that they are about to start designing and that one press quote might not be adequate for them. They would need to have details what the new regulations exactly are.

If all we have is that one quote from a year ago and there are not at least very active cross-industry committees working with details which somebody would have certainly heard about we can assume that this cockpit problem was some misunderstanding somewhere and nothing is coming out from it.

Or how is it. I don't know. This is just a big mystery.

You might want to review our thread at viewtopic.php?t=1439627 ...

The quote from Seattle Times in #3 says:

And (Boeing CEO Calhoun) indicated that the lessons learned from the MAX accidents, especially the change in thinking about how flight crews handle emergencies, could have a profound impact on that next new airplane design.

“We might have to start with the flight control philosophy before we actually get to the airplane,” he said. “We’ve always favored airplanes that required more pilot flying than maybe our competitor did. We are all going to have to get our heads around exactly what we want” in future.

So there are words such as "could" and "might" but I think an unbiased observer would draw the conclusion that he was equivocating. The issue had not been raised at all up to that point, and all of a sudden it was raised in the context of the NMA being shelved during the MAX crisis and the new CEO making his first major comments to the press.

Flight Global ( https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes ... 12.article ) has extended comments and is reaching similar conclusions.

As an aside, in that thread in #23 you can read my comments on doing a "me too" airplane:

In essence A321 has taken this round of the fight just like 777 pushed the A340 out of the market and A330 pushed 767 out of the market.

IMO something different from and better than A321 needs to be produced.

You don't aim for where the puck is, you aim for where it's going to be.

Seems I am picking this hill to die on...
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Opus99
Posts: 2217
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 01, 2021 7:43 pm

Revelation wrote:
Ertro wrote:
How old is that quote about FAA and cockpit standards? Is it directly from FAA or is it some interpretation what some journalist heard some Boeing executive saying about what somebody (who?) had told Boeing (same or different person from Boeing?) So is this perhaps a fourth hand rumour from a year ago and nothing since?

I mean there have been new plane designs started or considered to be started from many companies around the world and for example some company in Brazil would very much like know what kind of cockpit they would need to put in their new cleansheet design that they are about to start designing and that one press quote might not be adequate for them. They would need to have details what the new regulations exactly are.

If all we have is that one quote from a year ago and there are not at least very active cross-industry committees working with details which somebody would have certainly heard about we can assume that this cockpit problem was some misunderstanding somewhere and nothing is coming out from it.

Or how is it. I don't know. This is just a big mystery.

You might want to review our thread at viewtopic.php?t=1439627 ...

The quote from Seattle Times in #3 says:

And (Boeing CEO Calhoun) indicated that the lessons learned from the MAX accidents, especially the change in thinking about how flight crews handle emergencies, could have a profound impact on that next new airplane design.

“We might have to start with the flight control philosophy before we actually get to the airplane,” he said. “We’ve always favored airplanes that required more pilot flying than maybe our competitor did. We are all going to have to get our heads around exactly what we want” in future.

So there are words such as "could" and "might" but I think an unbiased observer would draw the conclusion that he was equivocating. The issue had not been raised at all up to that point, and all of a sudden it was raised in the context of the NMA being shelved during the MAX crisis and the new CEO making his first major comments to the press.

Flight Global ( https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes ... 12.article ) has extended comments and is reaching similar conclusions.

As an aside, in that thread in #23 you can read my comments on doing a "me too" airplane:

In essence A321 has taken this round of the fight just like 777 pushed the A340 out of the market and A330 pushed 767 out of the market.

IMO something different from and better than A321 needs to be produced.

You don't aim for where the puck is, you aim for where it's going to be.

Seems I am picking this hill to die on...

It’s the only way. That’s how they’ve been ahead in the widebody market. It’s the only way to “beat the 321neo” because you have first player advantage you dictate that segment. I agree. I’m just wondering what kind of market is that. Is it slightly smaller than the 321neo? Is it bigger? This is what Boeing’s market research team must get right

The 787 was a new segment they created and that led to the 1500 sales we have of the type today.

Airbus did a me too on the 350 and 380. 350 is a success but it’s a 777 me too and 600 sales short of the 787. Boeing developed the right plane at the right time and got the market right. They need to do it for the narrow body segment
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:08 pm

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

That's a very good summation.

Whether or not it's one cross section or two or two wings or three the next Boeing product family needs to cover that range.

You also articulated exactly what I was trying to say about a potential new wing 322. It would be kind of shocking if it did not have to be done on a new type certificate or with a full certification effort as the scale of changes needed to accommodate a new larger wing plus possibly a higher MTOW, new gear - new tail, are about as extensive in terms of structural changes as Boeing made to 77W/L to make the 777X.

I believe there have been very various comments/opinions on here and in the media that that scale of change would never be allowed again without a full certification effort. I then made the logical/illogical leap that if the A322 is effectively a new type then no way would the 1980's cockpit be allowed. The systems changes would have to be extensive and by that point you might as well go cleansheet. Boeing also changed a lot of systems on the 777X.

I think the only thing that may pass muster now and be certified as a derivative without a full certification would be something like a simple stretch. Something like an A322 but with the existing cockpit/systems/wing/gear/tail and MTOW. I can see that happening if it's only 12 seats. However, it would not be that competitive with a clean sheet Boeing response and still take at 4-5 years.

So I agree I don't think it's as bleak for Boeing as many are making it out. I highly doubt that the envisioned new wing A322 can be done as fast or easily as people think in the new regulatory regime. It could possibly be allowed by EASA but the FAA would never allow it. Boeing's lobbyists and Congress would ensure that.

I think the talk is not about the scale o the changes but rather the scale of the oversight by the regulator. Is there evidence that this occurred at airbus too?
morrisond wrote:

If Boeing's FBW system isn't good enough for a new type then the A320's surely isn't.

Who says Boeing’s FBW system isn’t good enough? And even if it isn’t the differences go beyond level of technology and in to the design philosophy. Other then fanboys trying to win points I can’t see either philosophy needing any changes.
morrisond wrote:

In any case given the scale of changes on the 777X I don't think it should ever have been allowed to be certificated as a derivative and should have been clean sheet certification effort from day 1 - which if the FAA had any balls and insisted on that may have caused Boeing to do the simpler big wing (or at least higher MTOW version of the 787) - the 787-11/12 using the same systems. Or given that the 787 wing is supposedly good for 280T - higher thrust engines/new gear maybe new longer tips could have gotten them to an -11 length with a nice range (call it 789 range, A351 Capacity) - much like 777E to 777W, or A359 to A351, and an -10 with range/capacity about the same as the A359.


So airbus would find it too much to do a stretch and a new wing for the A322 because of certification requirements but Boeing could do new wing and stretch on a 787? Lol, is that because of magic carbon?

‘Grandafathering’ rules were fine, the issue is that too much trust was handed to the OEM. Now a lot of things are being checked after the fact because the FAA were caught napping and Boeing were caught supplying comfy beds to nap in.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I didn't say half of what you say I said above. The 787-11/12 would probably have been allowed back at 777x inception as a derivative especially as it would have have had the same systems. The A320 might have a lot tougher time now if it has to have a new cockpit.


Which there’s no evidence it would have to...there is no issue with ‘grandfathering’ per se, and I wouldn’t expect any change in this regard.
morrisond wrote:

From 2175301 above:

"The FAA told Boeing that any new clean-sheet design aircraft would need an improved cockpit based on the lessons learned from the 737Max investigation, and none of the existing approved Boeing cockpits were adequate. That was a big hit to the NMA project which had been delayed for board presentation and approval due to the 737Max issues; and with a added delay caused by serious rethinking and redesign of the cockpit and change in CEO's the NMA program was sent back to the study phase and the pre-production NMA team was largely disbanded (although I understand that Boeing started an advanced cockpit team). That was actually fortunate timing for Boeing given the Covid-19 crises."


Can you name 1 clean sheet aircraft that has used an existing cockpit design that would not be permitted under the regulations for when it was made? It appears what you are saying is that the rules that are already in place, are still in place. The quote you have used says nothing about it not being acceptable to use the same cockpit design on an aircraft with a supplemental type certificate of which it shares said cockpit.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26277
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:40 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
As an aside, in that thread in #23 you can read my comments on doing a "me too" airplane:

In essence A321 has taken this round of the fight just like 777 pushed the A340 out of the market and A330 pushed 767 out of the market.

IMO something different from and better than A321 needs to be produced.

You don't aim for where the puck is, you aim for where it's going to be.

Seems I am picking this hill to die on...

It’s the only way. That’s how they’ve been ahead in the widebody market. It’s the only way to “beat the 321neo” because you have first player advantage you dictate that segment. I agree. I’m just wondering what kind of market is that. Is it slightly smaller than the 321neo? Is it bigger? This is what Boeing’s market research team must get right

The 787 was a new segment they created and that led to the 1500 sales we have of the type today.

Airbus did a me too on the 350 and 380. 350 is a success but it’s a 777 me too and 600 sales short of the 787. Boeing developed the right plane at the right time and got the market right. They need to do it for the narrow body segment

Yes, market positioning is very subjective and very challenging.

I don't want to re-argue the NMA era debates, but I'm a fan of doing something bigger than A321neo. As written earlier, taking it head on plays to all the A321's strengths. Airbus really would have to do nothing to compete against it for quite a while if it chose to do so, just keep making A321s cheaper and faster than Boeing can till the market is saturated and Boeing's investment turns to dust. At least doing something bigger will provide market differentiation and provoke a response. It'll let Boeing roll out their new manufacturing approach at a lower volume point thus less pressure and it'll not prematurely squash their investment in MAX.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
morrisond
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:55 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
I think the talk is not about the scale o the changes but rather the scale of the oversight by the regulator. Is there evidence that this occurred at airbus too?

Who says Boeing’s FBW system isn’t good enough? And even if it isn’t the differences go beyond level of technology and in to the design philosophy. Other then fanboys trying to win points I can’t see either philosophy needing any changes.


So airbus would find it too much to do a stretch and a new wing for the A322 because of certification requirements but Boeing could do new wing and stretch on a 787? Lol, is that because of magic carbon?

‘Grandafathering’ rules were fine, the issue is that too much trust was handed to the OEM. Now a lot of things are being checked after the fact because the FAA were caught napping and Boeing were caught supplying comfy beds to nap in.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I didn't say half of what you say I said above. The 787-11/12 would probably have been allowed back at 777x inception as a derivative especially as it would have have had the same systems. The A320 might have a lot tougher time now if it has to have a new cockpit.


Which there’s no evidence it would have to...there is no issue with ‘grandfathering’ per se, and I wouldn’t expect any change in this regard.
morrisond wrote:

From 2175301 above:

"The FAA told Boeing that any new clean-sheet design aircraft would need an improved cockpit based on the lessons learned from the 737Max investigation, and none of the existing approved Boeing cockpits were adequate. That was a big hit to the NMA project which had been delayed for board presentation and approval due to the 737Max issues; and with a added delay caused by serious rethinking and redesign of the cockpit and change in CEO's the NMA program was sent back to the study phase and the pre-production NMA team was largely disbanded (although I understand that Boeing started an advanced cockpit team). That was actually fortunate timing for Boeing given the Covid-19 crises."


Can you name 1 clean sheet aircraft that has used an existing cockpit design that would not be permitted under the regulations for when it was made? It appears what you are saying is that the rules that are already in place, are still in place. The quote you have used says nothing about it not being acceptable to use the same cockpit design on an aircraft with a supplemental type certificate of which it shares said cockpit.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


What that quote says is that the rules might be changing for new clean sheets.

That's fine I have my view - you have yours - in a few years from now when we know the answer we can dig this up and see who is right.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:44 pm

If we're going widebody, Boeing has two choices:

    Make a modern 767
    Make a modern A300/A310

Of the two, a modern A300/A310 likely is the better option since it can seat 2+4+2 and take 2xLD3. Have the shrink at 45m and the stretch at 55m. Make the wings 52m so they fit in ICAO Code D.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:57 pm

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

I didn't say half of what you say I said above. The 787-11/12 would probably have been allowed back at 777x inception as a derivative especially as it would have have had the same systems. The A320 might have a lot tougher time now if it has to have a new cockpit.


Which there’s no evidence it would have to...there is no issue with ‘grandfathering’ per se, and I wouldn’t expect any change in this regard.
morrisond wrote:

From 2175301 above:

"The FAA told Boeing that any new clean-sheet design aircraft would need an improved cockpit based on the lessons learned from the 737Max investigation, and none of the existing approved Boeing cockpits were adequate. That was a big hit to the NMA project which had been delayed for board presentation and approval due to the 737Max issues; and with a added delay caused by serious rethinking and redesign of the cockpit and change in CEO's the NMA program was sent back to the study phase and the pre-production NMA team was largely disbanded (although I understand that Boeing started an advanced cockpit team). That was actually fortunate timing for Boeing given the Covid-19 crises."


Can you name 1 clean sheet aircraft that has used an existing cockpit design that would not be permitted under the regulations for when it was made? It appears what you are saying is that the rules that are already in place, are still in place. The quote you have used says nothing about it not being acceptable to use the same cockpit design on an aircraft with a supplemental type certificate of which it shares said cockpit.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


What that quote says is that the rules might be changing for new clean sheets.

That's fine I have my view - you have yours - in a few years from now when we know the answer we can dig this up and see who is right.

No, the rules are that the cockpit design must conform to the current regs for a clean sheet design and have some leeway in terms of the incorporation of a derivative in to a already existing type certificate. What that quote says is that the current regulations are being impacted by what was learned from the max and so the requirements that a new build must meet are different than that which Boeing expected. Nothing about whether grandfathering is acceptable or not.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
2175301
Posts: 2063
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 12:15 am

flipdewaf wrote:
No, the rules are that the cockpit design must conform to the current regs for a clean sheet design and have some leeway in terms of the incorporation of a derivative in to a already existing type certificate. What that quote says is that the current regulations are being impacted by what was learned from the max and so the requirements that a new build must meet are different than that which Boeing expected. Nothing about whether grandfathering is acceptable or not.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If I may provide a summary of what I know, what I suspect based on how I know regulatory agencies can work, and what I was told by someone working on the NMA at a high enough level to know a lot about what was going on).

The 737Max investigations involved the formation of several panels consisting primarily of representatives from Brazil, Canada, EASA, FAA. China was granted observer status (and could comment) on the panels established under the international air safety treaty between Brazil, Canada, EASA, and the FAA. The NTSB investigation had a similar panel and their report indicated many issues with cockpit and flight control; and some of those issues are general to large commercial aviation (regardless of manufacturer). I note that Airbus for years has been promoting better training around the world to deal with some of these issues.

It is my belief that apparently these international working groups came to some kind of understanding on where cockpit design and pilot workload needs to head in the future as they progressed through things.

My information is that the NMA business case had actually closed, they had customers who wanted it, and that the only reason it had not been presented to the board of directors for approval to move forward spring 2019 was the 737Max crisis (my memory was that this delay of NMA project presentation was reported in several news sources at the time). Also, that the NMA cockpit was based on the 787 cockpit.

The NMA project progressed with further design work and production optimization planning while the 737Max situation continued.

At essentially the same time as the CEO quote listed above by Revelation, I received word from my contact that they would have to restart over with cockpit concept and design as the FAA had told them (Boeing) that neither the 787 cockpit or any other they currently had addressed the significant cockpit issues raised during the 737Max investigation... and would not be accepted in any proposed clean sheet aircraft (not already in process). My contact estimated at least a year delay - and possibly more.

I note that this is actually only the 2nd time though the NMA project that we had been talking that my contact told me anything specific about a decision. Everything else was theoretical type engineering/business discussions on the pro's and con's of one approach or another, how you could approach studying an issue, to which degree you studied things, different variations on how Boeing could get the kind of engine the wanted, etc. without ever indicating at all what had been decided (and I'm sure they knew most of the major decisions: to this day I don't know from them if they decided Al or Carbon Fiber, 1 isle or 2, and many other things). So given they told me something very specific and with details... that was rare. The CEO's comment aligned perfectly with my contacts comments. Back to the drawing board.

Now, this might not be "regulation"; but, I've seen many times where the NRC told us in the nuclear plant I worked that due to a new issue or new knowledge that we would have to do better than the existing regulation; and propose something that both meet the current regulations and solve the newly identified issue that they could review (and often the 1st company to propose a workable solution set the new standard that was adopted into the regulations). I suspect that the FAA operates at time with the same mindset. While you might eventually win a legal battle fighting that - you loose many years and a lot of money to get there (and how much could the FAA/EASA, etc. delay the certification of a new aircraft if they are forced by the courts to accept something like this). It's just not worth it. So your point may legally valid about meeting current regulations; just not practical business one the regulator tells you that you need to "do better" to improve safety based on new information. Given the international panels assembled. I suspect that the same expectation will be made for all other new clean sheet large commercial aircraft (above a certain size) in their respective countries.

It is also my understanding that this does not apply to derivatives. Airbus can produce updated models of their family of aircraft with just a derivative review with the cockpit grandfathered in. Boeing can do the same. However, I suspect that the review process for such aircraft will be noticeably more detailed and comprehensive by all countries after the 737Max issues. Thus, Airbus could do a A322, A350NEO, etc. Boeing is free to do their 764F when Fed-Ex and UPS want it, along with an updated 787 someday, etc.

But new clean-sheet above a certain size... appears to require a substantial upgrade in cockpit functions and reduction in pilot workload when things get hectic.

I think its a valid question as to where the proposed Embraer new turbo prop fits with this new apparent expectation. Is about 70 passengers in or out of the new expectation? I have no idea.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:35 am

I'm not sure how to search for it, but somewhere either in this thread or one of the NMA/NSA threads, Boeing was contemplating a new way of thinking about the pilot/aircraft interface. Commenters at the time suggested that that may be an indication that Boeing is shifting a bit more control from the pilot to the aircraft. At the time, there was a debate about whether Boeing was becoming more like Airbus in this regard or going beyond Airbus.

I've not been in a cockpit since I was about 8. I don't claim any knowledge on the matter, but it would seem that there is a possibility that the FAA wants the aircraft to have more control, which would indicate that Boeing's cockpits would not work, Airbus's might.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26277
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 2:03 am

2175301 wrote:
If I may provide a summary of what I know, what I suspect based on how I know regulatory agencies can work, and what I was told by someone working on the NMA at a high enough level to know a lot about what was going on).

The 737Max investigations involved the formation of several panels consisting primarily of representatives from Brazil, Canada, EASA, FAA. China was granted observer status (and could comment) on the panels established under the international air safety treaty between Brazil, Canada, EASA, and the FAA. The NTSB investigation had a similar panel and their report indicated many issues with cockpit and flight control; and some of those issues are general to large commercial aviation (regardless of manufacturer). I note that Airbus for years has been promoting better training around the world to deal with some of these issues.

It is my belief that apparently these international working groups came to some kind of understanding on where cockpit design and pilot workload needs to head in the future as they progressed through things.

My information is that the NMA business case had actually closed, they had customers who wanted it, and that the only reason it had not been presented to the board of directors for approval to move forward spring 2019 was the 737Max crisis (my memory was that this delay of NMA project presentation was reported in several news sources at the time). Also, that the NMA cockpit was based on the 787 cockpit.

The NMA project progressed with further design work and production optimization planning while the 737Max situation continued.

At essentially the same time as the CEO quote listed above by Revelation, I received word from my contact that they would have to restart over with cockpit concept and design as the FAA had told them (Boeing) that neither the 787 cockpit or any other they currently had addressed the significant cockpit issues raised during the 737Max investigation... and would not be accepted in any proposed clean sheet aircraft (not already in process). My contact estimated at least a year delay - and possibly more.

I note that this is actually only the 2nd time though the NMA project that we had been talking that my contact told me anything specific about a decision. Everything else was theoretical type engineering/business discussions on the pro's and con's of one approach or another, how you could approach studying an issue, to which degree you studied things, different variations on how Boeing could get the kind of engine the wanted, etc. without ever indicating at all what had been decided (and I'm sure they knew most of the major decisions: to this day I don't know from them if they decided Al or Carbon Fiber, 1 isle or 2, and many other things). So given they told me something very specific and with details... that was rare. The CEO's comment aligned perfectly with my contacts comments. Back to the drawing board.

Now, this might not be "regulation"; but, I've seen many times where the NRC told us in the nuclear plant I worked that due to a new issue or new knowledge that we would have to do better than the existing regulation; and propose something that both meet the current regulations and solve the newly identified issue that they could review (and often the 1st company to propose a workable solution set the new standard that was adopted into the regulations). I suspect that the FAA operates at time with the same mindset. While you might eventually win a legal battle fighting that - you loose many years and a lot of money to get there (and how much could the FAA/EASA, etc. delay the certification of a new aircraft if they are forced by the courts to accept something like this). It's just not worth it. So your point may legally valid about meeting current regulations; just not practical business one the regulator tells you that you need to "do better" to improve safety based on new information. Given the international panels assembled. I suspect that the same expectation will be made for all other new clean sheet large commercial aircraft (above a certain size) in their respective countries.

It is also my understanding that this does not apply to derivatives. Airbus can produce updated models of their family of aircraft with just a derivative review with the cockpit grandfathered in. Boeing can do the same. However, I suspect that the review process for such aircraft will be noticeably more detailed and comprehensive by all countries after the 737Max issues. Thus, Airbus could do a A322, A350NEO, etc. Boeing is free to do their 764F when Fed-Ex and UPS want it, along with an updated 787 someday, etc.

But new clean-sheet above a certain size... appears to require a substantial upgrade in cockpit functions and reduction in pilot workload when things get hectic.

I think its a valid question as to where the proposed Embraer new turbo prop fits with this new apparent expectation. Is about 70 passengers in or out of the new expectation? I have no idea.

Have a great day,

Thanks for sharing that info. I had forgot that your contact was that specific on what was going on. I also appreciate you sharing your experiences working with the NRC. I can imagine something similar is going on. It seems FAA knows they are on the path to setting a new precedent and won't approve new clean sheet projects till they know what the new precedent will be. The response of Boeing standing down till the path becomes clearer makes sense to me. Hopefully the regulators and the industry will converge on the new precedent sooner rather than later.

NameOmitted wrote:
I'm not sure how to search for it, but somewhere either in this thread or one of the NMA/NSA threads, Boeing was contemplating a new way of thinking about the pilot/aircraft interface. Commenters at the time suggested that that may be an indication that Boeing is shifting a bit more control from the pilot to the aircraft. At the time, there was a debate about whether Boeing was becoming more like Airbus in this regard or going beyond Airbus.

My post in #157 above quotes the Boeing CEO saying pretty much this.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
morrisond
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 2:05 am

2175301 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
No, the rules are that the cockpit design must conform to the current regs for a clean sheet design and have some leeway in terms of the incorporation of a derivative in to a already existing type certificate. What that quote says is that the current regulations are being impacted by what was learned from the max and so the requirements that a new build must meet are different than that which Boeing expected. Nothing about whether grandfathering is acceptable or not.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If I may provide a summary of what I know, what I suspect based on how I know regulatory agencies can work, and what I was told by someone working on the NMA at a high enough level to know a lot about what was going on).

The 737Max investigations involved the formation of several panels consisting primarily of representatives from Brazil, Canada, EASA, FAA. China was granted observer status (and could comment) on the panels established under the international air safety treaty between Brazil, Canada, EASA, and the FAA. The NTSB investigation had a similar panel and their report indicated many issues with cockpit and flight control; and some of those issues are general to large commercial aviation (regardless of manufacturer). I note that Airbus for years has been promoting better training around the world to deal with some of these issues.

It is my belief that apparently these international working groups came to some kind of understanding on where cockpit design and pilot workload needs to head in the future as they progressed through things.

My information is that the NMA business case had actually closed, they had customers who wanted it, and that the only reason it had not been presented to the board of directors for approval to move forward spring 2019 was the 737Max crisis (my memory was that this delay of NMA project presentation was reported in several news sources at the time). Also, that the NMA cockpit was based on the 787 cockpit.

The NMA project progressed with further design work and production optimization planning while the 737Max situation continued.

At essentially the same time as the CEO quote listed above by Revelation, I received word from my contact that they would have to restart over with cockpit concept and design as the FAA had told them (Boeing) that neither the 787 cockpit or any other they currently had addressed the significant cockpit issues raised during the 737Max investigation... and would not be accepted in any proposed clean sheet aircraft (not already in process). My contact estimated at least a year delay - and possibly more.

I note that this is actually only the 2nd time though the NMA project that we had been talking that my contact told me anything specific about a decision. Everything else was theoretical type engineering/business discussions on the pro's and con's of one approach or another, how you could approach studying an issue, to which degree you studied things, different variations on how Boeing could get the kind of engine the wanted, etc. without ever indicating at all what had been decided (and I'm sure they knew most of the major decisions: to this day I don't know from them if they decided Al or Carbon Fiber, 1 isle or 2, and many other things). So given they told me something very specific and with details... that was rare. The CEO's comment aligned perfectly with my contacts comments. Back to the drawing board.

Now, this might not be "regulation"; but, I've seen many times where the NRC told us in the nuclear plant I worked that due to a new issue or new knowledge that we would have to do better than the existing regulation; and propose something that both meet the current regulations and solve the newly identified issue that they could review (and often the 1st company to propose a workable solution set the new standard that was adopted into the regulations). I suspect that the FAA operates at time with the same mindset. While you might eventually win a legal battle fighting that - you loose many years and a lot of money to get there (and how much could the FAA/EASA, etc. delay the certification of a new aircraft if they are forced by the courts to accept something like this). It's just not worth it. So your point may legally valid about meeting current regulations; just not practical business one the regulator tells you that you need to "do better" to improve safety based on new information. Given the international panels assembled. I suspect that the same expectation will be made for all other new clean sheet large commercial aircraft (above a certain size) in their respective countries.

It is also my understanding that this does not apply to derivatives. Airbus can produce updated models of their family of aircraft with just a derivative review with the cockpit grandfathered in. Boeing can do the same. However, I suspect that the review process for such aircraft will be noticeably more detailed and comprehensive by all countries after the 737Max issues. Thus, Airbus could do a A322, A350NEO, etc. Boeing is free to do their 764F when Fed-Ex and UPS want it, along with an updated 787 someday, etc.

But new clean-sheet above a certain size... appears to require a substantial upgrade in cockpit functions and reduction in pilot workload when things get hectic.

I think its a valid question as to where the proposed Embraer new turbo prop fits with this new apparent expectation. Is about 70 passengers in or out of the new expectation? I have no idea.

Have a great day,


Thank you great summary.

My point still stands - would the 777X be allowed today with the amount of change it actually incorporates (it's essentially almost all new) as a derivative. It has new Wings/Wingbox/tail, Fuselage frames, presumably skins, gear, engines and many system changes. I suspect that as the design progressed they changed more and more.

If yes - then discussion is over. If no - then the A322 with a new wing, tail, gear, wingbox and presumably at least some systems - would it not be the same scale of changes and essentially a new type?

I can see a basic A322 stretch without a new wing/tail/wingbox and gear passing muster but not an 777X type devlopment.
 
User avatar
PepeTheFrog
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 6:03 pm

Revelation wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
I was surprised to see that Boeing is still focused on the MAX 10. In fact, some of the additional work required for certification, will see itself trickled down to the 7,8,9 models.

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/boe ... 49.article

No mention in the article of all of the big MAX 10 changes that were pondered in this A.net thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1453525&hilit=MAX10&start=100

VV wrote:
[
I think the E190-E2, E195-E2 and E175-E2 are all derivative aircraft.


Yes, they are. I was referring to the E-170, E-175, E-190, E-195 which were the original four members of the clean-sheet E-Jets family, launched less than 20 years ago.

Article is paywalled, please provide a fair-use summary or find a non-paywalled source.


Just open the article in incognito mode, it allows to bypass the paywall.
Good moaning!
 
User avatar
PepeTheFrog
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 6:09 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
I was surprised to see that Boeing is still focused on the MAX 10. In fact, some of the additional work required for certification, will see itself trickled down to the 7,8,9 models.

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/boe ... 49.article

No mention in the article of all of the big MAX 10 changes that were pondered in this A.net thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1453525&hilit=MAX10&start=100

VV wrote:
[
I think the E190-E2, E195-E2 and E175-E2 are all derivative aircraft.


Yes, they are. I was referring to the E-170, E-175, E-190, E-195 which were the original four members of the clean-sheet E-Jets family, launched less than 20 years ago.


Today's article says that the MAX 10 is being delayed to 2023.
Good moaning!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26277
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 6:33 pm

PepeTheFrog wrote:
Revelation wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
I was surprised to see that Boeing is still focused on the MAX 10. In fact, some of the additional work required for certification, will see itself trickled down to the 7,8,9 models.

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/boe ... 49.article

Article is paywalled, please provide a fair-use summary or find a non-paywalled source.

Just open the article in incognito mode, it allows to bypass the paywall.

Thanks for the tips. Regardless, I just reloaded the page without logging in or incognito mode and it loaded. Maybe they moved it out from behind the paywall?

Some interesting stuff in there...

EASA says this is just to add safety rather than to fix an unsafe condition, and good for them. The regulations are the bare minimum acceptable levels. Nice to see them willing to stand their ground and ask for more. Seems they had grounds to do so, based on what is said in the rest of the article.

The article gives the impression that there's more work than one would think, and the newly announced "some time in 2023" slip agrees with that idea.

Seems the fixes will need to be retrofitted to all MAXes.

Just installing a 3rd AoA sensor was not done "due to the legacy independent federated system architecture of the Boeing 737". I guess "federated" is a nicer way of saying "dumb" or at least "disjointed".

Lots of talk of alerting systems, or lack thereof, on the MAX. I guess someone should remind them they figured it out for the E-6.

Some quotes:

Analysis of angle-of-attack sensor failure was expanded to other air-data failure scenarios through a review of a Boeing process developed to assess cascading problems.

EASA says pilot evaluation of these scenarios, using an engineering simulator, turned up “discrepancies” between the results obtained by EASA and those to be expected, according to Boeing technical documentation. EASA adds that it identified a “significant lack of consideration” of human factors elements in the Boeing process.

It's no surprise that you don't see something when you aren't looking for it.

But as part of the post-recertification activity for the Max, a human factors evaluation of the crew alerting system will be conducted within 12 months of the aircraft’s return to service, in collaboration with Boeing and the FAA.

EASA says this activity will also involve monitoring and assessing performance of the crew alerting system with regard to the risks of pilot errors or excessive workload, using a safety-management system approach.

Presumably this is another reason for the "some time in 2023" slip: dealing with any findings from this review.

And, finally, what I think is a bombshell:

Its technical investigation during the Max recertification has revealed “several systemic issues” in Boeing’s aircraft design processes – which, says EASA, show that the methodological concerns surrounding the development of the controversial MCAS stabiliser-control system were “not an isolated case”.

The result has been a refreshment of Boeing’s safety-assessment and development-assurance processes which will be applied for the 737-10.

Early on in the MCAS saga Boeing had an internal review of their design processes and announced they were fine.

Seems EASA is willing to say they were not, and that MCAS was "not an isolated case".

Ouch.

This could help explain why both MAX10 and 777X just took two year slips and the new airplane got shelved.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Pythagoras
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:33 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 7:43 pm

meh130 wrote:
The market needs an airplane that falls between the 170 seat Airbus A321XLR and 240 seat Boeing 787-8, with a 5,500-6,000nm no-wind range.

That is about 350,000lb-400,000lb (160t-180t) MTOW, with two 55,000lbf-60,000lbf engines.

It really needs to be a clean-sheet, all composite 767-300ER equivalent with 12:1 or greater bypass geared turbofans. Something that could be stretched to replace the early 787-8s (range depending) like the 787-9s are replacing 777-200s, and something that could eventually have a dedicated freighter variant to replace early 767-300Fs when they age out, as well as future military derivatives.


One can't just make this statement without explaining what market you are going after. What are the city pairs that you are trying to serve? And are there enough city pairs to make a business case for an airplane where you likely need crew relief given the range.

The problem with this size airplane is that an airline is buying a fleet of airplanes and if you have 10-20% of the fleet operating at the high end of the range limits, i.e. ~4500 - 5000nm, that means that the other 80% of the fleet is operating at ~3000 - 4000 nm where smaller airplanes this size have killer economics.

One needs to produce a lot of airplanes of this size to drive the capital costs low enough to be cost competitive with a higher-fuel burn non-optimized single-aisle A321XLR.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 7:58 pm

MAX10 delayed until 2023? Man... That tells us they intend to stay married to the MAX for a LOOOOONG time if it will be built...... Or... it's being kicked down the road could signal an earnest towards a new model.....

Being it's Boeing.... and they don't seem to have an appetite for any new clean sheet planes... as the last new launch was April 2004 (but of course we knew it as the 7E7 study for even longer than that - Jan 2003)... I'm going with MAX replacement anouncement in 2033. .
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
Chemist
Posts: 909
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:17 pm

A slightly related question. Years ago during many of the "revive the 757" threads, there was a regular message sent by more than one poster that "the 757 market isn't worth it, it is too niche, not enough airlines want a narrowbody with that long a range. That's why it's not worth reviving or updating the 757 - not a large market".

So fast forward a number of years, and Boeing did nothing in this "niche" and the A321 grew into the same niche, and is selling like hotcakes, and it seems that that same niche is actually pretty darn big. And Boeing ceded it to Airbus. So was the original "757 market is a niche" message a mistake?
 
Noshow
Posts: 2489
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:34 pm

I think what happened is more like: Install new engines on your standard model and it can become some optional standby long range airliner as a second role. Like a moonlight job or just a capability the next buyer might use. The killer feature is the low cost per seat doing it not so much the range. You can cost compete with bigger aircraft in a limited size market.
In real life longer range aircraft have different cabins with business class and galleys so real world flexibility is not as big as the theory would suggest.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 693
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:40 pm

2175301 wrote:



I suspect that the same expectation will be made for all other new clean sheet large commercial aircraft (above a certain size) in their respective countries.

It is also my understanding that this does not apply to derivatives. Airbus can produce updated models of their family of aircraft with just a derivative review with the cockpit grandfathered in. Boeing can do the same. However, I suspect that the review process for such aircraft will be noticeably more detailed and comprehensive by all countries after the 737Max issues. Thus, Airbus could do a A322, A350NEO, etc. Boeing is free to do their 764F when Fed-Ex and UPS want it, along with an updated 787 someday, etc.

But new clean-sheet above a certain size... appears to require a substantial upgrade in cockpit functions and reduction in pilot workload when things get hectic.

I think its a valid question as to where the proposed Embraer new turbo prop fits with this new apparent expectation. Is about 70 passengers in or out of the new expectation? I have no idea.

Have a great day,

So does this mean that both the 787 and A350 flight deck will need major redesign to be used on a new aircraft? What are the issues?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:50 pm

Chemist wrote:
So fast forward a number of years, and Boeing did nothing in this "niche" and the A321 grew into the same niche, and is selling like hotcakes, and it seems that that same niche is actually pretty darn big. And Boeing ceded it to Airbus. So was the original "757 market is a niche" message a mistake?


I think we need to look at what "niche" is being discussed. I am going to hazard a guess most are referring to the inter-continental (TATL) missions and really until the A321-200XLR, that wasn't really an option (yes, the 737 and A321 could do it with cargo tanks, but that impacted payload a fair bit). And even there, how many A321-200XLR are being purchased just for the flexibility since the XLR's fuel system is a bit more optimized for flexibility than the ACT route of the A321 and A321LR.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2217
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:57 pm

Its behind a paywall. but Boeing has already started reaching out to suppliers to start bringing their proposals for this new jet. The Project is called "-5X"

https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1 ... 0002601993

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... titor-plan
 
DenverTed
Posts: 693
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 9:31 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Its behind a paywall. but Boeing has already started reaching out to suppliers to start bringing their proposals for this new jet. The Project is called "-5X"

https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1 ... 0002601993

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... titor-plan

A secret hint to the trijet Falcon 5x? Could this be a 727-500 with 5,000 nm range?
 
Noshow
Posts: 2489
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 9:50 pm

Or Dash 80-5X?
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 9:58 pm

mmmm it's a 5th generation 737.... :duck:
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2217
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 10:01 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
mmmm it's a 5th generation 737.... :duck:

LOL, God forbid. Please that family has to go
 
Noshow
Posts: 2489
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 10:07 pm

NSAneo?
 
Opus99
Posts: 2217
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 10:17 pm

Noshow wrote:
NSAneo?

Jon Ostrower seems to think an NMA shrink
 
2175301
Posts: 2063
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:04 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Noshow wrote:
NSAneo?

Jon Ostrower seems to think an NMA shrink


My understanding is that the NMA program had 2 final designs at one point. A short range wide body, and a new narrow body. Based on a lot of information released it appeared that they had moved forward with the short range wide body. With the cancellation of the NMA program its my understanding that they reverted back to those 2 concepts and how they would do a new cockpit

I don't see how you could shrink the short range wide-body aircraft concept (except perhaps shortening its range even more). I see Boeing being able to move forward with the single isle concept relatively rapidly if that is where they think they need to be.

I'm really curious about what they see as the new cockpit.

Time will tell.

Have a great day,
 
Opus99
Posts: 2217
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:08 pm

2175301 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Noshow wrote:
NSAneo?

Jon Ostrower seems to think an NMA shrink


My understanding is that the NMA program had 2 final designs at one point. A short range wide body, and a new narrow body. Based on a lot of information released it appeared that they had moved forward with the short range wide body. With the cancellation of the NMA program its my understanding that they reverted back to those 2 concepts and how they would do a new cockpit

I don't see how you could shrink the short range wide-body aircraft concept (except perhaps shortening its range even more). I see Boeing being able to move forward with the single isle concept relatively rapidly if that is where they think they need to be.

I'm really curious about what they see as the new cockpit.

Time will tell.

Have a great day,

I think it’s the narrow body. I think I that’s what Jon must’ve been referring to. Because the whole point is to compete with the XLR
 
2175301
Posts: 2063
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:13 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Its behind a paywall. but Boeing has already started reaching out to suppliers to start bringing their proposals for this new jet. The Project is called "-5X"

https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1 ... 0002601993

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... titor-plan


I just noticed on Jon Ostrower's webpage that the wide body NMA was listed as "NMA-6X"

https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... eings-nma/

So perhaps the narrow body version was the "5X"
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26277
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:06 am

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
MAX10 delayed until 2023? Man... That tells us they intend to stay married to the MAX for a LOOOOONG time if it will be built...... Or... it's being kicked down the road could signal an earnest towards a new model.....

Being it's Boeing.... and they don't seem to have an appetite for any new clean sheet planes... as the last new launch was April 2004 (but of course we knew it as the 7E7 study for even longer than that - Jan 2003)... I'm going with MAX replacement anouncement in 2033. .

It's always been clear they and their supply chain and their customers have so much invested in MAX that they are going to do MAX10 even if it is coming out in 2023 and even if that slips. They've built the first one already. IMO the hold up is that the regulators have found things they want changed and are going to have even more input after the cockpit review is done in a year's time. It seems Boeing is being allowed to keep shipping MAX 8 and 9 while this work is happening, but it also seems it will all have to be retrofitted to MAX 8 and 9. No one's saying a word about MAX 7 which was close to EIS when the tragedies occurred. I suspect it's postponed even more and Boeing has worked out some compensation with WN.

DenverTed wrote:
So does this mean that both the 787 and A350 flight deck will need major redesign to be used on a new aircraft? What are the issues?

"New aircraft" is ambiguous. Amended type certificate: is that a new aircraft or not? In this context, it is not. Clean sheet i.e. new type certificate is a new aircraft in this context. FAA has not spelled out what the issues are. As mentioned above, the international regulators including FAA are doing a MAX cockpit review right now to finish in a years time or less. Maybe once that is released we'll all know more about where things are going.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
LH707330
Posts: 2460
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:57 am

Looks like Airways has that story too: Boeing Set to Produce Mid-size Aircraft | Airways Magazine. It's a bit sparse on details, claiming 270 pax at 11 hours range. That puts it at 767-300ER payload/range.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16075
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:19 am

Revelation wrote:
Feel free to be more specific and suggest areas where the "40 year old design" can be improved. I gave a few guesses earlier, but don't think they are game changers nor are things that could not be retrofitted if the advantages of doing so outweighed the disadvantages. Keep in mind it's not like today's A32x is unchanged from the A320-100 of the 80s.


The best analogy to this I can give you would be back in the Vietnam war, the early jamming equipment was hardware based, whenever the soviets updated their SAM the jamming hardware needed be physically modified to remain effective. By the end of the war, software based jammers were used, and are still used today.

As everyone knows that A320 was the first digital FBW in a production airliner, what that means is a significant part of the aircraft is software driven. Since the A320-100 came into effect the software has been upgraded thousands of times, people used to joke and say the A320 was nothing more than 400 computers flying in close formation. This is a fundamental difference between a mechanical aircraft like the 737 and the digital A320. To modify the 737, like we are seeing in the MAX updates take a lot of man hours, it requires physical changes to cables. The A320 being software gets updated with a 3.5" floppy disk or USB drive. These software updates are not only for the FBW itself, also for other systems like the fault warning computer, the system that generates the electronic checklists.

The 737 also lacks a proper 3 axis autopilot, more on that will follow soon. The yaw dampener has far less authority than a proper rudder actuator. Have an engine failure on a 777 nothing much will happen if pilots are not very fast to make control inputs, on the 737 the aircraft will crash unless the correct inputs are made quickly.

The 737 does not prioritize warning and caution events like the newer generation Boeing aircraft.

A fundamental issue that has raised it head in many accident reports involving Boeings in the past few years is the lack of mode awareness by flight crews. Airbus SOP in the FCOM is for every mode change to be verbalized and cross checked, this is one of the Airbus golden rules, know your FMA at all times. It would have saved the 737 in AMS, the 777 in SFO, the 777 in DXB if this same FMA philosophy was used on Boeings.

Documentation is another area which Boeings are significantly lacking in recent times. Back with the 747 classic the manuals were fantastic, they were full of good detail, however the downside was the training took longer to know it. These days the manuals have been drummed so much critical information is simply not provided to pilots. Going back t the Asiana accident in SFO, the autothrust section in the 777 provides pilots with next to no detail on how the system works, on the 737MAX is was made very public that the MCAS was deliberately not included. The reason this information is not provided from the MAX investigation was it would require additional training, that training has a cost, and that then gets included when the bids are compared in RFPs.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
2175301
Posts: 2063
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:37 am

Revelation wrote:
FAA has not spelled out what the issues are. As mentioned above, the international regulators including FAA are doing a MAX cockpit review right now to finish in a years time or less. Maybe once that is released we'll all know more about where things are going.


Actually, I do believe that the FAA told Boeing what the issues were and what they (and I assume the international group) was looking for. You can actually glean the major stuff from the NTSB and other reports.

Working from memory (without looking them out) - the key ones are:

1) A realistic assumption on pilot recognition/response time.

2) Some kind of system that presents the pilots with what likely initiated a problem versus a number of simultaneous confusing alarm conditions. I note that in Power Plants we went from most of the alarm panel indicators flashing on/off in Alarm 30 years ago for a major plant trip - to only the initiating alarm panels flashing on/of in alarm - and the subsequent ones for equipment or systems that tripped just turned on. We also now have "first out" panels (did the boiler/reactor, turbine, or generator trip first as any one of those will trip the other two a few milliseconds later; and what first tripped the boiler/reactor, turbine, or generator). What used to be mass confusion on what may have happened with all those flashing alarm panels is now identifiable at a glance at where the main problem is or originated from.

3) Considerations of other human factors based on well known research.

I'm sure that there may be a few more... But, I'm sure that Boeing knows what they are being asked to better deal with.

Have a great day,
 
Avgeek21
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:44 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:40 am

zeke wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The 737 also lacks a proper 3 axis autopilot, more on that will follow soon. The yaw dampener has far less authority than a proper rudder actuator. Have an engine failure on a 777 nothing much will happen if pilots are not very fast to make control inputs, on the 737 the aircraft will crash unless the correct inputs are made quickly.

The 737 does not prioritize warning and caution events like the newer generation Boeing aircraft.

A fundamental issue that has raised it head in many accident reports involving Boeings in the past few years is the lack of mode awareness by flight crews. Airbus SOP in the FCOM is for every mode change to be verbalized and cross checked, this is one of the Airbus golden rules, know your FMA at all times. It would have saved the 737 in AMS, the 777 in SFO, the 777 in DXB if this same FMA philosophy was used on Boeings.


The 737 is just a 737. With an engine failure you put your foot in and trim 5 units. Big deal. No need for the aircraft to tell me what it thinks the main issue is. That’s why I study the systems and train in a sim. The 737 logic is actually pretty simple. If you know what you are doing. And yes I’ve flow 21st century full EFIS+FBW aircraft too. I’ll take a 737 any day.

All 737 FMA changes have to be called out. There are very few of them anyway so easy to know which one does what anyways.

The TK737 and EK and Asiana 777 crashed because of complacency and/or incompetence.
 
2175301
Posts: 2063
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:42 am

LH707330 wrote:
Looks like Airways has that story too: Boeing Set to Produce Mid-size Aircraft | Airways Magazine. It's a bit sparse on details, claiming 270 pax at 11 hours range. That puts it at 767-300ER payload/range.


Actually, it might make best sense to complete the previosly planned NMA first as they had so much work done on it - if the market is still there for it (even if they change it to carry more freight). That was intended to set the stage for a new narrow-body anyway, and Boeing had new engine quotes for it.

We will see what happens.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16075
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 7:27 am

Avgeek21 wrote:
The 737 is just a 737. With an engine failure you put your foot in and trim 5 units. Big deal. No need for the aircraft to tell me what it thinks the main issue is. That’s why I study the systems and train in a sim. The 737 logic is actually pretty simple. If you know what you are doing. And yes I’ve flow 21st century full EFIS+FBW aircraft too. I’ll take a 737 any day.


I have friends who instruct on the 737 in Europe with over 20,000 hrs on Boeing’s including the 757/767/787/777 and they think the 737 is the biggest piece of junk and they love everything Boeing. Having flown all the newer Boeing’s they tell me how far behind the 737 is, they have told me in some detail on the shortcomings. Their description of an engine failure handling is not like yours, they see many people fail to handle it correctly and crash the simulator. They said it particularly an issue with the thrust pitch up on one engine, they said all those issues were removed on later Boeing’s.

Avgeek21 wrote:
All 737 FMA changes have to be called out.


How many FMA changes are not called out in this approach and the go around ? https://youtu.be/FGoN_FTZMJQ

Avgeek21 wrote:
The TK737 and EK and Asiana 777 crashed because of complacency and/or incompetence.


They happened because the crew didn’t know the thrust mode they were in.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
morrisond
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:33 pm

According to Aviation Week it sounds like the 5X is 752/753 in capacity it will be twin aisle and won't cover the 767. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... titor-plan If you can't access the article its a free registration.

What I have been calling the tight/light NMA Oval with single seating capacity up to about 270 (A321 plus a Row). Although the article does say a two class aircraft - it specifically says this version will cover the 752 and 753 and exclude the 767 and it's targeting the 250-275 seat size targeting but not necessarily 250-275 seats in a 2 class configuration. This would argue for a 7W and an 8W would be too large for this. The 7W could also be adopted for an eventual MAX replacement with new wing/gear/tail/. Plus other than here on Anet - 8W has never been rumoured or leaked in the media.

"The new Boeing airliner study, believed to be called the -5X, appears to be an outgrowth of the shelved New Midmarket Airplane (NMA) project and is targeting the 250-275 seat size category in a two-class, twin-aisle configuration. The aircraft, which would effectively be a replacement for the 757-200/300, would likely have a range of up to 5,000 nm and be aimed at entry-into-service in the late 2020s."

I would have to guess the first version is about A322 in Capacity (A321 plus 2 rows according to current rumours) and the second version larger than that. The larger version will be Boeing's trump card as Airbus may not be able to stretch an A320 that long.

The cross section could be something like 168"H x 186"W. They are throwing around a potential launch date of next year or the year after.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2217
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:37 pm

morrisond wrote:
According to Aviation Week it sounds like the 5X is 752/753 in capacity it will be twin aisle and won't cover the 767. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... titor-plan If you can't access the article its a free registration.

What I have been calling the tight/light NMA Oval with single seating capacity up to about 270 (A321 plus a Row). Although the article does say a two class aircraft - it specifically says this version will cover the 752 and 753 and exclude the 767 and it's targeting the 250-275 seat size targeting but not necessarily 250-275 seats in a 2 class configuration. This would argue for a 7W and an 8W would be too large for this. The 7W could also be adopted for an eventual MAX replacement with new wing/gear/tail/. Plus other than here on Anet - 8W has never been rumoured or leaked in the media.

"The new Boeing airliner study, believed to be called the -5X, appears to be an outgrowth of the shelved New Midmarket Airplane (NMA) project and is targeting the 250-275 seat size category in a two-class, twin-aisle configuration. The aircraft, which would effectively be a replacement for the 757-200/300, would likely have a range of up to 5,000 nm and be aimed at entry-into-service in the late 2020s."

I would have to guess the first version is about A322 in Capacity (A321 plus 2 rows according to current rumours) and the second version larger than that. The larger version will be Boeing's trump card as Airbus may not be able to stretch an A320 that long.

The cross section could be something like 168"H x 186"W. They are throwing around a potential launch date of next year or the year after.

Interesting. @revelation isn’t this what you were thinking in terms of size? Bigger than the 321neo?
 
744SPX
Posts: 484
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:45 pm

Boeing needs to be focusing on NSA, not NMA. The longer they put off a MAX replacement, the worse the position they will be in.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:49 pm

186 inches would be 13 inches wider than the ATMR and 13 inches narrower than the 767 so that would support 2+3+2 with a seat width between 17 and 18 inches (depending on aisle width).
 
Opus99
Posts: 2217
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:53 pm

But can i just ask, does this really compete with the XLR thats a single aisle? I imagine it would be lighter no? But I imagine the attraction is the higher seat capacity?
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:58 pm

744SPX wrote:
Boeing needs to be focusing on NSA, not NMA. The longer they put off a MAX replacement, the worse the position they will be in.
Exactly.

Anyone that wants a plane that is larger than say MAX10 should be told that there is a jetliner that could seat 230 in a 2 class config, and that is the 787-8. Anyone that wants more capacity than this can get the 787-9.

It is time for them to simplify the portfolio.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 9056
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:59 pm

744SPX wrote:
Boeing needs to be focusing on NSA, not NMA. The longer they put off a MAX replacement, the worse the position they will be in.


It is easy to build a bigger plane with more seats and spread the news about great per seat economics than to build a capable smaller plane.

Both wasted at least a decade on WB obsession setting back innovations in NB tech.
All posts are just opinions.

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