Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Max Q
Posts: 9317
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:44 am

Not many that rolled out of the factory in 1967
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14746
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:19 am

Max Q wrote:
the latest 777 ? They put a composite wing on it, new engines and the 787 cockpit, that’s a significant update but not a ‘bet the company proposition’ and it will be a success

You don't know that.

I mean, we HOPE it'll be a success, but that's not a guarantee... and hell, at this point: it's not even looking more-likely-than-not. Sales (and rollout) for the 777X are currently something of a disaster.

That can change, and maybe it will; the 77W isn't fully within its replacement cycle for the overwhelming majority of its operators, so that remains a great opportunity for the 777X.

But that's not a guarantee, and it can depend on plenty of factors not even specific to the aircraft itself.
E.g. no one thought the A346 would be such a comparative sales flop (outsold nearly 9-to-1 by the 77W) when it debuted, but yet, that was its fate. Similar for the 764ER.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3685
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:29 am

Airbus had reused the existing, stretched A340 fuselage and modified wing of the A340-300 with bigger engines for some fast and dirty 777-300ER response. They have learned their lesson with the A350 it seems.
 
Max Q
Posts: 9317
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 6:10 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Max Q wrote:
the latest 777 ? They put a composite wing on it, new engines and the 787 cockpit, that’s a significant update but not a ‘bet the company proposition’ and it will be a success

You don't know that.

I mean, we HOPE it'll be a success, but that's not a guarantee... and hell, at this point: it's not even looking more-likely-than-not. Sales (and rollout) for the 777X are currently something of a disaster.

That can change, and maybe it will; the 77W isn't fully within its replacement cycle for the overwhelming majority of its operators, so that remains a great opportunity for the 777X.

But that's not a guarantee, and it can depend on plenty of factors not even specific to the aircraft itself.
E.g. no one thought the A346 would be such a comparative sales flop (outsold nearly 9-to-1 by the 77W) when it debuted, but yet, that was its fate. Similar for the 764ER.




The A380 is toast


It’s on the way out far quicker than most people think will happen, even with EK, I’d give it to the end of the decade at longest


That leaves one aircraft that remotely resembles a VLA, the 777-9, it’s the closest to a two engine 744 the industry will get and there are certain high traffic routes and slot restricted / congested airports it will be invaluable for, not to mention the huge 777 Classic replacement market


The entire civil aviation market is completely distorted at present by COVID, domestic US travel is rebounding vigorously but it’s going to take a while for international travel to come back


With the new triple’s delayed entry into service in 2023 it should be well timed to capitalize on this


I wouldn’t agree that it’s current orders are that bad either, they have a respectable number and it’s just at the beginning of its service life


Unlike the 757 and it’s premature cancellation (Boeing’s biggest mistake) the timing on the new triple should work out exactly right
 
Noshow
Posts: 3685
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 6:18 am

The 757 had no more orders back then. The -300 did not sell well as did the offered longer range -200. There was no way to keep it going.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 21472
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:15 am

NameOmitted wrote:
But why? The 757 was amazing. Hot, high, sprightly, a sportscar.


Others see a heavy, over-powered, fuel-guzzler. How many are left in active passenger service?
 
Noshow
Posts: 3685
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:20 am

The wider fuselage sister 767 did surprisingly better because of the freighter and tanker. The 757 only works as a converted freighter but second hand A321s seem to take over this business.
 
Max Q
Posts: 9317
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:23 am

scbriml wrote:
NameOmitted wrote:
But why? The 757 was amazing. Hot, high, sprightly, a sportscar.


Others see a heavy, over-powered, fuel-guzzler. How many are left in active passenger service?



There are still over six hundred 757’s in service, must not be that inefficient !
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 10:07 am

Noshow wrote:
The wider fuselage sister 767 did surprisingly better because of the freighter and tanker. The 757 only works as a converted freighter but second hand A321s seem to take over this business.

Because there are no more 757s left to convert.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 21472
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 11:42 am

Max Q wrote:
scbriml wrote:
NameOmitted wrote:
But why? The 757 was amazing. Hot, high, sprightly, a sportscar.


Others see a heavy, over-powered, fuel-guzzler. How many are left in active passenger service?



There are still over six hundred 757’s in service, must not be that inefficient !


The question was how many still in active passenger service?

According to this article from April 2020, just 71 757s were in active passenger service.
https://simpleflying.com/over-80-of-the ... -grounded/

But happy to see more recent numbers if you have them.
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:11 pm

Max Q wrote:
scbriml wrote:
NameOmitted wrote:
But why? The 757 was amazing. Hot, high, sprightly, a sportscar.


Others see a heavy, over-powered, fuel-guzzler. How many are left in active passenger service?



There are still over six hundred 757’s in service, must not be that inefficient !

757 vs A321CEO is about 15-20% more fuel burn. A321CEO vs A321NEO is about 15-20% more fuel burn. Plus the added maintenance of a 20+ year old airplane that is no longer in production. A paid off 757 obviously has less capex requirement than a new NEO or even a mid life CEO. But for a high utilization plane, 757 is a lot more costly to operate than a NEO (or MAX9/10), at least on a fuel and maintenance basis, which is why most 757 operators have transitioned, begun transitioning, or have plans to transition them out of service.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14746
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:28 pm

Max Q wrote:
That leaves one aircraft that remotely resembles a VLA, the 777-9, it’s the closest to a two engine 744 the industry will get and there are certain high traffic routes and slot restricted / congested airports it will be invaluable for, not to mention the huge 777 Classic replacement market

Again, so what? ...the exact same thing was said about the 747's impending retirement in favor of the A380, and look how that panned out.

While I'm fairly hopeful that the majority of 779 operators will keep some semblance of their orders, I also wouldn't be terribly surprised if it too becomes a tiny niche operator, and a decade or so from now leaves the largest common ship flying the skies as something like an A350NEO or 78XER.

Could go either way at this point-- but as stated, no one here would have anywhere near the wherewithal to accurately predict which it'll be.
 
SEU
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:21 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 1:03 pm

Can someone with more insight tell me why Boeing isnt putting all their eggs into a brand new 737 family replacement?

Boeing just need a brand new 737 replacement, with family members the size of A320/A321/A322, but beats the Airbus's in being the latest technology etc.

Is it because of the new environmentally friendly wave that is happening i.e electric/hybrid and they are waiting for that? Or they need to make their money back on the 737 MAX so dont want to announce a new plane as it might stop orders etc ?
 
micstatic
Posts: 851
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2001 10:07 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 1:12 pm

While Boeing may need a 757 size airplane, it doesn't mean a re-engined 757 would have been the answer. Too much dead weight being carried around. Even if some of the parts are replaced with composites, still too heavy. Boeing is in quite the spot right now in terms of their commercial airplanes.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 1177
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 1:51 pm

SEU wrote:
Can someone with more insight tell me why Boeing isnt putting all their eggs into a brand new 737 family replacement?


The MAX is their most recently updated line. So recent, it's not done teething yet. Why would replacing it be the next priority?
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 1177
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 2:09 pm

scbriml wrote:
NameOmitted wrote:
But why? The 757 was amazing. Hot, high, sprightly, a sportscar.


Others see a heavy, over-powered, fuel-guzzler. How many are left in active passenger service?

Yes, hence my follow-up comment about the number of minivans on the road.

I keep imagining a bus forum where people ask why New Flyer does not have a line of city buses with 1,000 hp and a snowplow to better handle a few storms a year for this one client.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5640
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:16 pm

Res the 737. An all new replacement can not be competitive with the 320 neo family. $15 billion R&D for only a small improvement in CASM.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 3114
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:51 pm

SEU wrote:
Can someone with more insight tell me why Boeing isnt putting all their eggs into a brand new 737 family replacement?

Boeing just need a brand new 737 replacement, with family members the size of A320/A321/A322, but beats the Airbus's in being the latest technology etc.

Is it because of the new environmentally friendly wave that is happening i.e electric/hybrid and they are waiting for that? Or they need to make their money back on the 737 MAX so dont want to announce a new plane as it might stop orders etc ?


The problem with a NSA is that there's no engine available which will generate the savings needed to make the project viable. The Truss-braced fatamorgana is just that; a fancy looking CGI which - given the various physical constraints an airliner is facing - just won't fit inside the rather narrow box defining those physical constraints.

As for Boeing ever making a profit off the 737, I seriously doubt it. What I don't doubt, however, is that Boeing will do whatever it can to financially engineer it in way which best hides, obscures, postpones or reallocates the losses. Much like they're doing on the 787, by saying (probably correctly) that they're making x millions of each frame delivered, but financially engineering the colossal costs incurred getting to get to that point.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27680
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:55 pm

SEU wrote:
Can someone with more insight tell me why Boeing isnt putting all their eggs into a brand new 737 family replacement?

Boeing just need a brand new 737 replacement, with family members the size of A320/A321/A322, but beats the Airbus's in being the latest technology etc.

Is it because of the new environmentally friendly wave that is happening i.e electric/hybrid and they are waiting for that? Or they need to make their money back on the 737 MAX so dont want to announce a new plane as it might stop orders etc ?

It is the later.

Killing off MAX early would screw over the 737 supply chain and the customers who have and still are investing $billions in the product.

MAX will only be replaced when it stops selling, and given that we've just seen AS, FR and WN make new big orders, that is not happening.
 
CRJockey
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 4:00 pm

SteelChair wrote:
Ref boarding from the tarmac: how uncivilized. And Europeans brag about their civility.

There is this thing called the American Disabilities Act. It's difficult to board from the tarmac if you are in a wheelchair. The person has to literally be carried up and down the stairs, sometimes in the rain. To say nothing of the dangers caused by small children getting loose on the ramp.

Really, boarding from the tarmac is very 1950s.


You literally described the largest non-issue on todays aviation. At least in civilized countries where people needing assistance get a free of charge lift with a lift truck. If in your country people still get carried up the stairs, man, civil-up a bit. ;)
 
User avatar
hongkongflyer
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:23 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 4:11 pm

CRJockey wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Ref boarding from the tarmac: how uncivilized. And Europeans brag about their civility.

There is this thing called the American Disabilities Act. It's difficult to board from the tarmac if you are in a wheelchair. The person has to literally be carried up and down the stairs, sometimes in the rain. To say nothing of the dangers caused by small children getting loose on the ramp.

Really, boarding from the tarmac is very 1950s.


You literally described the largest non-issue on todays aviation. At least in civilized countries where people needing assistance get a free of charge lift with a lift truck. If in your country people still get carried up the stairs, man, civil-up a bit. ;)


Agree, actually their norms of airport operation result in inefficient use of resources.
For examples why gates (in most airports) must be dedicated to certain airlines so that some flights have to wait while there are plenty of available gates.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 3217
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 4:37 pm

Max Q wrote:
There’d be no dilemma at all if Boeing had persevered with the 757, keeping the production line warm even if there were no orders for an extended period would have been billions cheaper than what the Max fiasco has cost them not to mention the cost of developing a clean sheet replacement for the 737 AND the 757 / 767


Boeing was always very good at long term vision, the 747 was the epitome of that with an over fifty year production run they squeezed every last innovation and dollar from that magnificent aircraft


No reason they couldn’t have done the same with the 757, by now it could have been on at least it’s third significant update with new engines, a 787 inspired cockpit and a composite wing it would have offered significant range and efficiency years before the A321XLR, those improvements could have migrated over to its sibling 767 and that medium market would be covered for years to come


Just as importantly that would have allowed their development budget to provide for a clean sheet 737 replacement that would have significantly better numbers than the A321NEO, what they should have built instead of the MAX which should never have seen the light of day


Why would Boeing persevere with an aircraft for which demand had dropped off quite sharply? The MOM market wasn't really there, hence the 757 and 767 dropped off. It arguably still isn't as the MOM concept has stuttered even without a collapse of air travel.

In any case, the 757 was lacking in efficiency on shorter routes (where the majority of flying took place) as it was a larger and heavier aircraft, and it's unsurprising that the A321 and 737-900ER (plus Neo and Max variations) took that over. Any revamp wouldn't change that unless the engines were a generation newer.

There's been no shortage of suggestions that revamped 757s would have been the answer, but I really don't see how it could have been.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2934
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:47 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Ref boarding from the tarmac: how uncivilized. And Europeans brag about their civility.

There is this thing called the American Disabilities Act. It's difficult to board from the tarmac if you are in a wheelchair. The person has to literally be carried up and down the stairs, sometimes in the rain. To say nothing of the dangers caused by small children getting loose on the ramp.

Really, boarding from the tarmac is very 1950s.

Never seen a person in a wheelchair being carried up and down the stairs; that's not only dangerous, but would violate a lot of countries' safety rules. And let's not even discuss about liability in case the person-in-wheelchair falls.

There are some lifts for this purpose.


About 20 years ago I worked in a company that was aiding people with disabilities, elderly and children. Anyone who needed a wheelchair was put in a light weight plastic wheelchair, the person's private wheelchair would be checked. If necessary we carried the person (while) sitting in light weight wheelchair up the stairs to the plane. It worked great, but you needed to be fit physically.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 971
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:54 pm

meh.... 757 again.

MaxQ, you've been on here 20 years (me 17). Don't you remember Boeing pulling all the stops to sell the 757?

Image

But seriously, all kidding aside.. Boeing did take the 757 on a World Tour for several weeks to drum up enthusiasm for the 757-300 in 2000. They just couldn't sell them (55 total).

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2000-02-03-Boeing-757-300-Marks-New-Century-With-World-Tour

At it's peak in the early 90s, when it was still a relatively new jet, 757s were being produced at the rate of 100 a year. 737 was near closing in on doing that in 2 months before the Groundings/Covi, despite being 40+ years old.

A lesson here for Boeing is perhaps to avoid shooting for capacities above 250 with the single aisle platform. Maybe this new plane will top out at 250pax/5000nmi. The important part is all the effort in doing it must scale down to a shorter fuselage, smaller wing, lighter gear, smaller engine 737 replacement.
 
Max Q
Posts: 9317
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:09 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
meh.... 757 again.

MaxQ, you've been on here 20 years (me 17). Don't you remember Boeing pulling all the stops to sell the 757?

Image

But seriously, all kidding aside.. Boeing did take the 757 on a World Tour for several weeks to drum up enthusiasm for the 757-300 in 2000. They just couldn't sell them (55 total).

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2000-02-03-Boeing-757-300-Marks-New-Century-With-World-Tour

At it's peak in the early 90s, when it was still a relatively new jet, 757s were being produced at the rate of 100 a year. 737 was near closing in on doing that in 2 months before the Groundings/Covi, despite being 40+ years old.

A lesson here for Boeing is perhaps to avoid shooting for capacities above 250 with the single aisle platform. Maybe this new plane will top out at 250pax/5000nmi. The important part is all the effort in doing it must scale down to a shorter fuselage, smaller wing, lighter gear, smaller engine 737 replacement.



I remember,


Boeing should have persevered longer, like they did with the 747 during times of weak demand

All these obsessive arguments about ‘excessive weight’ on the 757 don’t amount to anything significant, a composite wing could have significantly lightened the structure anyway
 
Max Q
Posts: 9317
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:11 pm

Max Q wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
meh.... 757 again.

MaxQ, you've been on here 20 years (me 17). Don't you remember Boeing pulling all the stops to sell the 757?

Image

But seriously, all kidding aside.. Boeing did take the 757 on a World Tour for several weeks to drum up enthusiasm for the 757-300 in 2000. They just couldn't sell them (55 total).

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2000-02-03-Boeing-757-300-Marks-New-Century-With-World-Tour

At it's peak in the early 90s, when it was still a relatively new jet, 757s were being produced at the rate of 100 a year. 737 was near closing in on doing that in 2 months before the Groundings/Covi, despite being 40+ years old.

A lesson here for Boeing is perhaps to avoid shooting for capacities above 250 with the single aisle platform. Maybe this new plane will top out at 250pax/5000nmi. The important part is all the effort in doing it must scale down to a shorter fuselage, smaller wing, lighter gear, smaller engine 737 replacement.



I remember,


Boeing should have persevered longer, like they did with the 747 during times of weak demand

All these obsessive arguments about ‘excessive weight’ on the 757 don’t amount to anything significant, a composite wing could have significantly lightened the structure anyway



Ironically I think the 757 replacement is going to look just like…a 757
 
User avatar
usdcaguy
Posts: 1795
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:41 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:36 pm

A new 757-style aircraft is long overdue but is most appropriate for domestic flying. Many people do not like flying it overseas because the toilets stink several hours into the flight and the seating is cramped. A revamped 767-style aircraft would be better received by the public, since they love the 2x3 configuration in the back. If the 757 is going to fly across the pond, Boeing would do well to widen the fuselage and raise the ceiling by about a foot or so. You want to give the impression of being in a widebody without being in one or those carriers flying it will be at a competitive disadvantage. The 727 design did offer that advantage.
 
User avatar
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1447
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:55 pm

SEU wrote:
Can someone with more insight tell me why Boeing isnt putting all their eggs into a brand new 737 family replacement?

Boeing just need a brand new 737 replacement, with family members the size of A320/A321/A322, but beats the Airbus's in being the latest technology etc.

Is it because of the new environmentally friendly wave that is happening i.e electric/hybrid and they are waiting for that? Or they need to make their money back on the 737 MAX so dont want to announce a new plane as it might stop orders etc ?


Southwest is one big answer. They want to keep flying the 737 until hell freezes over and Southwest is one of Boeing's largest customers. :old:
Here is a picture of one of the original 737-130s from about 1968. Notice the OLD Volkwagens they do not make anymore.
 
Max Q
Posts: 9317
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:15 pm

A big part of Boeing’s self induced dilemma is there are no significant leaps in engine efficiency around the corner for a clean sheet Max replacement


If they proceed with developing one anyway they wont get the major gains in power plant efficiency that will be available by waiting for at least five more years


The 757/ 67 market is probably the one to address but this notion of a twin aisle aircraft to replace the former is just not going to be competitive


You can’t push a wider tube through the air with lower fuel burn than a narrower one, I think they’re going to abandon that idea
 
Noshow
Posts: 3685
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:44 pm

Lufthansa had airstairs at the front and the back!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9833
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 10:59 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
meh.... 757 again.

MaxQ, you've been on here 20 years (me 17). Don't you remember Boeing pulling all the stops to sell the 757?

Image

But seriously, all kidding aside.. Boeing did take the 757 on a World Tour for several weeks to drum up enthusiasm for the 757-300 in 2000. They just couldn't sell them (55 total).

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2000-02-03-Boeing-757-300-Marks-New-Century-With-World-Tour

At it's peak in the early 90s, when it was still a relatively new jet, 757s were being produced at the rate of 100 a year. 737 was near closing in on doing that in 2 months before the Groundings/Covi, despite being 40+ years old.

A lesson here for Boeing is perhaps to avoid shooting for capacities above 250 with the single aisle platform. Maybe this new plane will top out at 250pax/5000nmi. The important part is all the effort in doing it must scale down to a shorter fuselage, smaller wing, lighter gear, smaller engine 737 replacement.


Boeing also canceled frames that were still on order and the 767 was down to similar numbers as the 757 at that time.

But the main problem at Boeing is, that they waited to long to replace the 737. That replacement could have filled the 757 space too.
 
User avatar
PITingres
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 11:26 pm

kabq737 wrote:
...

At the end of the day if you’ve only got one jetway than the same number of people have to go through the door no matter where it’s at. Therefore the difference between mid door and front door is negligible unless they can both be used.


The first sentence is true. The second, only if the flow through the door is the rate limiter, and it usually isn't. The rate limiter is the pax holding up the aisle to fiddle in the overheads, get to an outer seat, etc. Since a mid door position has two directions for people to go, I'd expect it to board faster. (although not 2x faster, of course.)
 
UPS757Pilot
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:22 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 11:55 pm

Did Boeing ever offer a 757-300 freighter? Seems like it would have been an excellent DC-8 replacement.
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1705
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:19 am

I for one LOVE boarding from the tarmac. Very POTUS-like experience. Even to an E120 in MHT.

I remember watching my dad climbing the stairs back in the 1960s and waving to us, back when airports had observation decks.

(YES: I know there are still some that do, but they are the exception, agreed?)
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14746
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:43 am

hongkongflyer wrote:
For examples why gates (in most airports) must be dedicated to certain airlines so that some flights have to wait while there are plenty of available gates.

THAT'S really not that difficult of a concept to understand: the airlines often invest privately in the facilities, thus the spaces are theirs to utilize/dominate. They've no reason to care if other carriers not allied in finances incur difficulty using facilities as a result; in fact, they probably desire that.


UPS757Pilot wrote:
Did Boeing ever offer a 757-300 freighter? Seems like it would have been an excellent DC-8 replacement.

No, because it wouldn't.

Just be flying additional deadweight over a 752F in exchange for only marginal more room, to lift volume instead of weight. Combined with low feed-stock to spread the cost of a conversion program over, and you had a losing proposition-- hence nobody doing it.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 1:06 am

JetBuddy wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Ref boarding from the tarmac: how uncivilized. And Europeans brag about their civility.

There is this thing called the American Disabilities Act. It's difficult to board from the tarmac if you are in a wheelchair. The person has to literally be carried up and down the stairs, sometimes in the rain. To say nothing of the dangers caused by small children getting loose on the ramp.

Really, boarding from the tarmac is very 1950s.

Never seen a person in a wheelchair being carried up and down the stairs; that's not only dangerous, but would violate a lot of countries' safety rules. And let's not even discuss about liability in case the person-in-wheelchair falls.

There are some lifts for this purpose.


About 20 years ago I worked in a company that was aiding people with disabilities, elderly and children. Anyone who needed a wheelchair was put in a light weight plastic wheelchair, the person's private wheelchair would be checked. If necessary we carried the person (while) sitting in light weight wheelchair up the stairs to the plane. It worked great, but you needed to be fit physically.


But but but all the experts here say it never happens. I have news for them, it's still a reality today.
 
Rekoff
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue May 18, 2021 7:15 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:06 am

How is tarmac boarding for the disabled remotely relevant to this topic? Yes single aisle boards slower, is it relevant to the choice Boeing needs to make? Not at all.

The key dilemma is climate change regulations, the energy transition towards sustainable sources and how first mover technology forces the rest of the industry to follow. We are seeing this happening right now in the car industry where Tesla showed it is possible to create an affordable electric car with performance that outshines their ICE competitors. Regulations enforce a transition as soon as a certain technological path has become viable. With aviation, simply offering a plane with comparable performance might be enough to cause a massive industry shift through taxation and regulation on non-hydrogen planes. Then there is economies of scale that start to reshape.

The difficulty for Boeing is that this energy transition right now, mostly political perhaps, is lead by Europe, and it will be very hard for them to gauge how the wind will blow ten-fifteen years from now. The electric car industry shows that once the transition starts, it accelerates very fast. The car industry needed 5 years to launch electric models that still can't compete with the Teslas on performance and efficiency. Boeing would need even more time and would be forced to develope a new single aisle family only 5 years after it launched the NBA, if I go by the 2035 date Airbus mentioned, and the expected launch window of the NBA.

If you ask me, I don't think we will see the first American hydrogen (or electric) airliner from Boeing. It will be from a startup like Boom. And I wouldnt be surprised at all if Elon Musk, after setting his sight on the car industry (Tesla) and the space industry (SpaceX), decides to enter the industry that sits between both.

But I could just as well be wrong and synthetic carbon-neutral kerosene is the way forward. This is the dilemma Boeing faces right now. All of the trajectories are in its infancy still. If a hydrogen economy starts to blossom from excess wind and solar energy, the choice for hydrogen might be the one to follow.
 
Rekoff
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue May 18, 2021 7:15 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:39 am

I missed my edit window.
From this POV, the old first NMA then NSA strategy makes more sense. If you can squeeze the 321/322 between the NMA (long distance) and MAX10 (short distance), it would buy them time towards the end of this decade, when we have a better view on how the hydrogen economy is materialising. Testing CFRP production at scale with the NMA would be no different then Airbus trying the same with a rewinged A322.
 
User avatar
Leovinus
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:57 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:21 am

Rekoff wrote:
But I could just as well be wrong and synthetic carbon-neutral kerosene is the way forward. This is the dilemma Boeing faces right now. All of the trajectories are in its infancy still. If a hydrogen economy starts to blossom from excess wind and solar energy, the choice for hydrogen might be the one to follow.


I agree with you. Hydrogen or algae based SAF's are the only real options in the shorter term for anything reaching medium haul stage lengths. At least until there is a massive weight reduction with solid state batteries.

Both have issues. Hydrogen doesn't yet have the infrastructure required. Nor the supply (but supply is even worse for SAF's, so equal footing there).

The premier downside with SAF's though is that I fear they will be a climate disaster prettied up as "green" tech. The only really valid source for carbon neutral alternate fuels is algae. The US and others are backing agriculture sectors instead however. This is skewing the price of what's needed to what's lobbied (and much worse). Agriculturally produced biofuels take far more energy to create, and land mass to use, for the given energy available in the end product. It's NOT carbon neutral. I've read about this over several years now, but this video by Real Engineering puts it very, very, well: https://youtu.be/OpEB6hCpIGM

The alternative is hydrogen then, which the EU and particularly France is pushing. It's in a sense a known technology. It's been tested and validated in aviation. With green energy used to create it it's essentially an entirely renewable and green fuel storage medium (I mean, you could make it with coal power, but that'd defeat the purpose). But this requires massive international investments in infrastructure. A slight upside is that you can run it either directly in traditional engines or through fuel cells for electric engines.

If I were Boeing I would be talking very seriously with Airbus about what direction to take. As two of the largest manufacturers in the west they can influence governments. And they will need to since they are reliant on something outside their field for the next generation of aircraft. The fuel and its infrastructure. Nothing they build until there is more clarity for the way forward can be expected to be particularly long lived. If they want sales numbers and longevity in the range of the 737 they need to take the future into account.

So aside from fuel, the question is if Boeing thinks it's valid to make a stop gap aircraft. One they know might need to be replaced completely a decade or two down the line.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:57 am

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
meh.... 757 again.

MaxQ, you've been on here 20 years (me 17). Don't you remember Boeing pulling all the stops to sell the 757?

Image

But seriously, all kidding aside.. Boeing did take the 757 on a World Tour for several weeks to drum up enthusiasm for the 757-300 in 2000. They just couldn't sell them (55 total).

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2000-02-03-Boeing-757-300-Marks-New-Century-With-World-Tour



I visited the World Tour -300 and remember I hit my head on the in aisle overhead monitor (CRT), low & in the middle of the aisle :fight: . I wondered how anyone could position it that low at that spot (there were 4-5 I guess.)
 
Kikko19
Posts: 954
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:25 am

Leovinus wrote:
Rekoff wrote:
But I could just as well be wrong and synthetic carbon-neutral kerosene is the way forward. This is the dilemma Boeing faces right now. All of the trajectories are in its infancy still. If a hydrogen economy starts to blossom from excess wind and solar energy, the choice for hydrogen might be the one to follow.


I agree with you. Hydrogen or algae based SAF's are the only real options in the shorter term for anything reaching medium haul stage lengths. At least until there is a massive weight reduction with solid state batteries.

Both have issues. Hydrogen doesn't yet have the infrastructure required. Nor the supply (but supply is even worse for SAF's, so equal footing there).

The premier downside with SAF's though is that I fear they will be a climate disaster prettied up as "green" tech. The only really valid source for carbon neutral alternate fuels is algae. The US and others are backing agriculture sectors instead however. This is skewing the price of what's needed to what's lobbied (and much worse). Agriculturally produced biofuels take far more energy to create, and land mass to use, for the given energy available in the end product. It's NOT carbon neutral. I've read about this over several years now, but this video by Real Engineering puts it very, very, well: https://youtu.be/OpEB6hCpIGM

The alternative is hydrogen then, which the EU and particularly France is pushing. It's in a sense a known technology. It's been tested and validated in aviation. With green energy used to create it it's essentially an entirely renewable and green fuel storage medium (I mean, you could make it with coal power, but that'd defeat the purpose). But this requires massive international investments in infrastructure. A slight upside is that you can run it either directly in traditional engines or through fuel cells for electric engines.

If I were Boeing I would be talking very seriously with Airbus about what direction to take. As two of the largest manufacturers in the west they can influence governments. And they will need to since they are reliant on something outside their field for the next generation of aircraft. The fuel and its infrastructure. Nothing they build until there is more clarity for the way forward can be expected to be particularly long lived. If they want sales numbers and longevity in the range of the 737 they need to take the future into account.

So aside from fuel, the question is if Boeing thinks it's valid to make a stop gap aircraft. One they know might need to be replaced completely a decade or two down the line.

IMHO electric has still too many problems. I saw a couple of videos about an electric scooter and a tesla burning.... I would never risk (yet) to board an electric powered plane
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:34 am

scbriml wrote:
NameOmitted wrote:
But why? The 757 was amazing. Hot, high, sprightly, a sportscar.


Others see a heavy, over-powered, fuel-guzzler. How many are left in active passenger service?


Fuel guzzler? Carrying 199 people on 7,000 lb/hr? That's an amazing fuel burn per seat, all the moreso given its 1982-83 service introduction. In fact, up until the GTF and LEAP, the fuel burn per seat was unmatched.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1565
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:52 am

Kikko19 wrote:
Leovinus wrote:
Rekoff wrote:
But I could just as well be wrong and synthetic carbon-neutral kerosene is the way forward. This is the dilemma Boeing faces right now. All of the trajectories are in its infancy still. If a hydrogen economy starts to blossom from excess wind and solar energy, the choice for hydrogen might be the one to follow.


I agree with you. Hydrogen or algae based SAF's are the only real options in the shorter term for anything reaching medium haul stage lengths. At least until there is a massive weight reduction with solid state batteries.

Both have issues. Hydrogen doesn't yet have the infrastructure required. Nor the supply (but supply is even worse for SAF's, so equal footing there).

The premier downside with SAF's though is that I fear they will be a climate disaster prettied up as "green" tech. The only really valid source for carbon neutral alternate fuels is algae. The US and others are backing agriculture sectors instead however. This is skewing the price of what's needed to what's lobbied (and much worse). Agriculturally produced biofuels take far more energy to create, and land mass to use, for the given energy available in the end product. It's NOT carbon neutral. I've read about this over several years now, but this video by Real Engineering puts it very, very, well: https://youtu.be/OpEB6hCpIGM

The alternative is hydrogen then, which the EU and particularly France is pushing. It's in a sense a known technology. It's been tested and validated in aviation. With green energy used to create it it's essentially an entirely renewable and green fuel storage medium (I mean, you could make it with coal power, but that'd defeat the purpose). But this requires massive international investments in infrastructure. A slight upside is that you can run it either directly in traditional engines or through fuel cells for electric engines.

If I were Boeing I would be talking very seriously with Airbus about what direction to take. As two of the largest manufacturers in the west they can influence governments. And they will need to since they are reliant on something outside their field for the next generation of aircraft. The fuel and its infrastructure. Nothing they build until there is more clarity for the way forward can be expected to be particularly long lived. If they want sales numbers and longevity in the range of the 737 they need to take the future into account.

So aside from fuel, the question is if Boeing thinks it's valid to make a stop gap aircraft. One they know might need to be replaced completely a decade or two down the line.

IMHO electric has still too many problems. I saw a couple of videos about an electric scooter and a tesla burning.... I would never risk (yet) to board an electric powered plane


Luckily we never see petrol cars burning. Its not like it is so common the media just ignored it, it actually really never happens.
 
User avatar
Leovinus
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:57 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:21 pm

I think it's disingenuous to take an electric scooter or Tesla fire as "proof" of a technologies inadequacy. Every technology has the potential to harm you. It's how you manage the risk that's important. Other things catch on fire regularly without so much as a blink from the public. And not because it's somehow better(?), but because we're used to it. We manage the risk. We mature the technology and accept its remaining flaws. And we keep working to perfect it.

Batteries and hydrogen have issues of safety to work through. And it's being worked on. Solid state batteries are far less flammable than ordinary lithium Ion battery technology we use today for example. Hydrogen is well known to be both embrittling and incredibly flammable, which is why research into storage containers and crash solutions is undergoing and well advanced to cope with it. I'd go so far as to say that hydrogen is inherently unsafe, but that we've reached a technological maturity as a society overall so that we are prepared to engineer a safety level somewhat in line with other how we cope with other catastrophic failures in airliners.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4640
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:42 pm

Ho many people died from the fire in the Hindenburg disaster?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5640
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:43 pm

Boeing knows (knew?) how to build good planes and do it at a profit. It has tried a lot of other things and failures were spectacular or dull, but still failures. Given that stock prices are largely an estimate of future profits Boeing has to have a future - and that is building good airplanes. That is why I believe a good MOM, even if it does not earn a lot of profit (or even only loses a little) is essential to ensure that Boeing has a future. It likely will be that last all new high bypass jet wing/tube plane.

A note, and I don't know how it fits with the above: The 737/320 and the 787/350 are so damn optimized (for so many routes) that it is difficult for anything else to compete. By the time China get it right I suspect some sort of new technology will overtake the 737/320 flights under 1000 miles. Bio-fuels could power flights over 1000 miles. Aviation itself has a great future.
 
User avatar
Leovinus
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:57 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:52 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Ho many people died from the fire in the Hindenburg disaster?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



If we built airliners today with the technological maturity of the 1930's I, too, would be incredibly sceptical. But we don't, so I'm not.
 
Rekoff
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue May 18, 2021 7:15 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 1:03 pm

Leovinus wrote:
Rekoff wrote:
But I could just as well be wrong and synthetic carbon-neutral kerosene is the way forward. This is the dilemma Boeing faces right now. All of the trajectories are in its infancy still. If a hydrogen economy starts to blossom from excess wind and solar energy, the choice for hydrogen might be the one to follow.


I agree with you. Hydrogen or algae based SAF's are the only real options in the shorter term for anything reaching medium haul stage lengths. At least until there is a massive weight reduction with solid state batteries.

Both have issues. Hydrogen doesn't yet have the infrastructure required. Nor the supply (but supply is even worse for SAF's, so equal footing there).

The premier downside with SAF's though is that I fear they will be a climate disaster prettied up as "green" tech. The only really valid source for carbon neutral alternate fuels is algae. The US and others are backing agriculture sectors instead however. This is skewing the price of what's needed to what's lobbied (and much worse). Agriculturally produced biofuels take far more energy to create, and land mass to use, for the given energy available in the end product. It's NOT carbon neutral. I've read about this over several years now, but this video by Real Engineering puts it very, very, well: https://youtu.be/OpEB6hCpIGM

The alternative is hydrogen then, which the EU and particularly France is pushing. It's in a sense a known technology. It's been tested and validated in aviation. With green energy used to create it it's essentially an entirely renewable and green fuel storage medium (I mean, you could make it with coal power, but that'd defeat the purpose). But this requires massive international investments in infrastructure. A slight upside is that you can run it either directly in traditional engines or through fuel cells for electric engines.

If I were Boeing I would be talking very seriously with Airbus about what direction to take. As two of the largest manufacturers in the west they can influence governments. And they will need to since they are reliant on something outside their field for the next generation of aircraft. The fuel and its infrastructure. Nothing they build until there is more clarity for the way forward can be expected to be particularly long lived. If they want sales numbers and longevity in the range of the 737 they need to take the future into account.

So aside from fuel, the question is if Boeing thinks it's valid to make a stop gap aircraft. One they know might need to be replaced completely a decade or two down the line.


Great addition, thank you. My personal preference would be SAF's, but if it takes the same road biomass has, we're actually worse off in the real world compared to kerosene, exactly for the reasons you mention.
 
User avatar
SeJoWa
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 1:28 pm

keesje wrote:
I visited the World Tour -300 and remember I hit my head on the in aisle overhead monitor (CRT), low & in the middle of the aisle :fight: . I wondered how anyone could position it that low at that spot (there were 4-5 I guess.)


You're one of the "Tallest People in the World" [DutchMark]. We're not all alike! :spin:
 
tomcat
Posts: 1081
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 1:59 pm

Rekoff wrote:
The difficulty for Boeing is that this energy transition right now, mostly political perhaps, is lead by Europe, and it will be very hard for them to gauge how the wind will blow ten-fifteen years from now. The electric car industry shows that once the transition starts, it accelerates very fast. The car industry needed 5 years to launch electric models that still can't compete with the Teslas on performance and efficiency. Boeing would need even more time and would be forced to develope a new single aisle family only 5 years after it launched the NBA, if I go by the 2035 date Airbus mentioned, and the expected launch window of the NBA.

If you ask me, I don't think we will see the first American hydrogen (or electric) airliner from Boeing. It will be from a startup like Boom. And I wouldnt be surprised at all if Elon Musk, after setting his sight on the car industry (Tesla) and the space industry (SpaceX), decides to enter the industry that sits between both.

But I could just as well be wrong and synthetic carbon-neutral kerosene is the way forward. This is the dilemma Boeing faces right now. All of the trajectories are in its infancy still. If a hydrogen economy starts to blossom from excess wind and solar energy, the choice for hydrogen might be the one to follow.


Boeing could edge their bets by setting-up Boeing-EU and invest in H2 concepts with EU funds. Nothing prevents them to do so. Doing so, they might even trigger a reaction at the US government which would suddenly find a good reason to poor money in H2-aviation.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 330lover, ARNPEK, Avatar2go, berty320, dare100em, DH106, DY789, emre787, Google Adsense [Bot], jakef, LSZH34, Puissance, Rogers99, SIGGIE, sirtoby, yashk, YVRda and 144 guests

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