If you need my positive feedback that much....
Your post #27 summed up the situation perfectly, IMO, and was all the response necessary to "crushing and killing".
Said all that needed to be said, to be honest.
Personally for me those couple of posts weren't even worthy of being given dignity by responding. But that's just my personal choice.
If fanboys want to rattle sabres on the back of an old article on an R+D project, that's their gig.
I'm sure most posters are aware of the reality of the thread basis.
Great, now I'm being portrayed as being excessively needy..
I guess I should be happy that my posts at least meet the standard of "worthy of being given dignity by responding" and use that to try to assuage my excessive neediness...
The NMA business case is different. This is a debate about a very real and significant situation.I remain convinced that the business case wasn't as ready to close as many posters think
, and your comment implied.
In the ST article linked in Scrimbl's response in post #78, that same well respected Dominic Gates uses this language..
Just last year, it seemed Boeing might announce plans at the 2019 Paris show for an all-new airplane
Given the significance of Boeing pulling the trigger on NMA or otherwise, I felt (and still feel) it was worthy of pushing back on the trend of turning such one single equivocal comment into a statement of fact that the launch was ready. I don't see that comment as "proof" that the business case was "ready to go".
No issue with the robust push back, there is definitely room for interpretation, people have different perspectives and have different information and see different things all the time.
Let's look at the quote in context:
With the intense focus on getting the MAX back in the sky, Boeing’s plans for future new planes are even more uncertain.
Just last year, it seemed Boeing might announce plans at the 2019 Paris show for an all-new airplane — what it calls the New Midmarket Airplane or NMA, a midrange, “middle-of-the-market” plane designed to be larger than the 737 single-aisle but smaller than the 787 widebody.
Its top selling point was that it would have the comfort of a widebody jet “with single-aisle economics.”
But an NMA decision has been pushed way out by the MAX crisis, which may even alter Boeing’s plan for what that future plane should be.
Ref: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -air-show/
we can agree MCAS had a major impact on NMA's trajectory (I hope!) and the point of disagreement is my use of the definite "about to close" vs this quote with its indefinite "seemed Boeing might".
Add Gate's later quote from my link ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... estore-it/
The new jet that Boeing was once expected to launch last year at the Paris Air Show now seems years away.
The indefinite "seemed Boeing might" has been replaced with a more definite "was once expected".
And a direct quote from Boeing's CTO right before PAS:
Boeing wasn’t expected to discuss either the 737 Max or its NMA plans in Paris, saying this spring its focus remains on returning the 737 Max fleet to flight after two crashes and a global grounding.
However, Boeing Chief Technology Officer Greg Hyslop recently said that Boeing plans a Paris NMA announcement.
Questioned about the plane at a conference in Charlotte, Hyslop tantalized the audience by saying, “I suggest you go to the Paris Air Show.”
Hyslop also revealed that Boeing wants to “build” its first 100 NMAs virtually before beginning physical assembly. He said that what some analysts have labeled the 797 “will be a great airplane” built “in an amazing production facility.”
Ref: https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... -jets.html
Then add 87 references and a detailed time line of what NMA was ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Ne ... e_Airplane
) and reach your own conclusions.
Mine are shaped by my recollection of many of the events in that time line, active participation in the many robust threads we've had on the topic, posts by members here saying they were working on the program and a lot of media reports.
You are free to "remain convinced that the business case wasn't as ready to close as many posters think", I am free to remain convinced it was about to close.
I've searched back in the thread to look for my own unconscious bias, as implied by your pushback, but didn't find it.
I have a "conscious" one that I have already stated - insofar as I can see a business case for Airbus to launch a simple derivative of the A321 into part of the MOM space, piggy-backed on it being part of an already successful narrowbody family, much more easily than I can see a business case for launching an expensive, dedicated programme to fill a space that I think is there due to market forces, not due to the lack of potential products.
But don't try to paint that as an Airbus vs Boeing bias, because it's not.
Is my stance actually correct? That's a different debate I guess, and many posters will disagree with me.
We'll see eventually, one way or another.
You've explained your lack of push back on the narrative tying the long-running Airbus R&D program to an actual product was due to (a) my adequate push back and (b) not dignifying other posts etc. and I accept that.
Of course Airbus has an easy path to a stretched derivative to enter the MOM space but I don't think that blocks Boeing from doing a bigger, more modern and more efficient MOM product. Boeing doesn't have the easy path open to it, it has to take the hard path or do nothing. IMO it won't do something that will prematurely terminate MAX, and I know this is not a very popular view, but IMO it is what will happen. They can't stiff their partners or their customers like that any time soon. Our 737 production thread suggest MAX10 will have its first flight in June. If Boeing was not willing to live and die with MAX the perfect time to change directions was when they were about to write those MCAS compensation checks. Instead they wrote those checks and took big orders for more MAXes from WN, AS, and FR, with FR now saying they want 100 MAX10s too. I think MAX has a lot more staying power than most posters think.