SEAorPWM wrote:

The 752 was considered back then for long thin routes, but the NEO killed it

Hardly.

The NEO got the last sun-dried scraps on a carcass that the 737NG and A32xCEO killed and picked clean nearly two decades ago.

LAX772LR wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

The 752 was considered back then for long thin routes, but the NEO killed it

Hardly.

The NEO got the last sun-dried scraps on a carcass that the 737NG and A32xCEO killed and picked clean nearly two decades ago.

Regardless, the period you are talking about was 20-25 years ago, and the last 77E was delivered 10 years ago with the 787-10 on the way.

Like ending the 757 line, Boeing made the right decision ending the 77E in 2013. The -10 might not have the range/payload, but like the A321-200 vs. 752 it can do most 77E missions much more efficiently.

Sermons wrote:

By the end of February both AB and Boeing delivered around 66 aircraft so far for the year.

That is 100% false. Boeing delivered nearly 100 aircraft.

Please list of your "around 66" aircraft so I can list the dozens of aircraft you forgot.

RJMAZ wrote:

Sermons wrote:

By the end of February both AB and Boeing delivered around 66 aircraft so far for the year.

That is 100% false. Boeing delivered nearly 100 aircraft.

Please list of your "around 66" aircraft so I can list the dozens of aircraft you forgot.

Boeing delivered 38 jets in January and 28 jets in February which equals 66.

https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/w ... er%20month.

https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/w ... er%20month.

JohanTally wrote:

Boeing delivered 38 jets in January and 28 jets in February which equals 66.

Great so you excluded all of the military aircraft.

Was 737NG and 767 production paused for 2 months for the P-8 Poseidon and KC-46 tanker programs?

The Super Hornet and Eagle deliveries must have also been paused despite producing multiple aircraft per month for many years.

RJMAZ wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

Boeing delivered 38 jets in January and 28 jets in February which equals 66.

Great so you excluded all of the military aircraft.

Was 737NG and 767 production paused for 2 months for the P-8 Poseidon and KC-46 tanker programs?

The Super Hornet and Eagle deliveries must have also been paused despite producing multiple aircraft per month for many years.

This is the civil aviation forum last I checked but I doubt many KC-46s were delivered.

"And so far this year, Boeing has not delivered a single 767 freighter or tanker because of this new problem: the interior of some center fuel tanks had not been properly cleaned nor the primer paint adhesion tested before the tanks were shipped to Boeing."

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ier-error/

RJMAZ wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

Boeing delivered 38 jets in January and 28 jets in February which equals 66.

Great so you excluded all of the military aircraft.

Was 737NG and 767 production paused for 2 months for the P-8 Poseidon and KC-46 tanker programs?

The Super Hornet and Eagle deliveries must have also been paused despite producing multiple aircraft per month for many years.

Do you have the military deliveries and were there anywhere near 34 of them in the first 2 months?

Boeing will never truly “turn around” until the yoke of Wall Street has been cast off. To elaborate, in an industry such as commercial aviation the horizons are far, far away and doesn’t at all gel with the Wall Street desire to see quarterly reports displaying ever increasing profits. Designing, developing, certifying and manufacturing a new aircraft is (should be) a 5-7 year endeavour, during which untold billions are poured into the program with the promise of future profits to come. Boeing has repeatedly and consistently failed to do that; FFS it’s taken them almost 10 years just to slap a new set of feathers and donks on the 777!

So, no, in a world where ever increasing profits and next quarterly are the only real parameters, Boeing will never become the world leader in commercial aviation that it once was.

JayinKitsap wrote:

However, if the PIC has a good amount of experience, the co-pilot could become a training spot, instead of 1,500 hours say 500 hours.

Hate to break it to you, but a “digital cockpit” has zero bearing on the experience required from a FO. I speak as a guy who started flying 727s with a grand total of 255 hours under his belt, moving on to the 757 at 420 hours.

That the US has a moronic rule requiring 1500 hours for a FO has zero relevance to cockpit design or flight safety. Literally the entire world outside the US is happy placing 200-ish hour pilots in the right hand seat and, to the surprise of absolutely nobody, aircraft aren’t falling out of the skies left, right and centre because of it.

B777LRF wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

However, if the PIC has a good amount of experience, the co-pilot could become a training spot, instead of 1,500 hours say 500 hours.

Hate to break it to you, but a “digital cockpit” has zero bearing on the experience required from a FO. I speak as a guy who started flying 727s with a grand total of 255 hours under his belt, moving on to the 757 at 420 hours.

That the US has a moronic rule requiring 1500 hours for a FO has zero relevance to cockpit design or flight safety. Literally the entire world outside the US is happy placing 200-ish hour pilots in the right hand seat and, to the surprise of absolutely nobody, aircraft aren’t falling out of the skies left, right and centre because of it.

I was considering non-technical factors - labor contracts, public perception, and outdated rules. I see the 1500 hour a reality just like the RJ scope clauses, both deserve to sunset - if technical aspects support it. A more autonomous cockpit could be the opening spot for new FO's to get experience, yes 200 hours and a certain amount of simulator time out at the edges of the envelope.

I see the cockpit of the future (What FAA and EASA require! in a new model) being capable of full autonomy and on remote pilot (either emergency or normal). Keeping two in the cockpit is the minimum with current aircraft and for a lot of years will be needed until the systems are proven by 1,000 planes flying 10 to 15 years. Only then could single pilot + Robot w/remote pilot on emergency backup would be acceptable to the public. A much simpler case - railroads - still have 2 on each train in the US. Some Australian mine railroads are full auto but it is fully divided off like elevators are.

sxf24 wrote:

Airbus and RR are not doing so hot with A330neo deliveries and reliability. I don’t think the airplane is the winner A.net makes it out to be.

JohanTally wrote:

So far airlines retiring A330CEOs aren't chomping at the bit for NEOs thus far. There is always the possibility that Airbus offers the A350-800 if the A330 line can no longer sustain itself. Until then the 787 is the most popular small widebody available.

Metchalus wrote:

It's losing head to heads against the current generation 787s. Hawaian and China Airlines for example. Against a re-engined 787 it won't stand a chance.

For every 330NEO ordered, is 1 less 787 being ordered. Remember the development cost was basically $0 in comparison to 787 costs. Then creating a brand new manufacturing process for the 787 when the 330NEO was already established bar the wings. A lot of money was spent on the 787 and not much on the 330NEO.

I think the 330NEO business proposition was to ensure that Boeing don't run away with the 787. The market likes it, while the aviation market ... meh. The 330NEO is the perfect example of disruptive technology and Blue Ocean according to MBA strategy textbook.

Lamp1009 wrote:

1. Boeing was initially supposed to get none of the order. Airbus was rumored to be the preferred manufacturer for almost a year, and somehow Boeing managed to slide in there one month before the announcement and get orders not just for 737 Max aircraft (which is the one competing with the filled A32X line), but 787s (which AI has a troubled relationship with) AND 777Xs (which has a less certain future than the A350-1000)

Is the Boeing order at cost price?
Were delivery times AI's main priority?
Is experience and infrastructure for the 737, 787 and 777 part of the consideration when ordering?
AI order, is so huge that maybe they considered a risk of ordering all from 1 OEM?

I am not privy to the information that would answer the above questions, but I am sure it would have been raised a few times.

oceanvikram wrote:

I think the 330NEO business proposition was to ensure that Boeing don't run away with the 787. The market likes it, while the aviation market ... meh. The 330NEO is the perfect example of disruptive technology and Blue Ocean according to MBA strategy textbook.

Same as what the 777X is doing to the sales a350-1000. To ensure the Airbus doesn't run away with that segment too.

The a330neo has not been as disruptive as you make it thou, considering the 787 received almost 200 orders in the last 4 months without much of a challenge .

200 equates to the a330neo's current remaining backlog.

Despite the delays and hiccups, Boeing has still managed fare very well against AB in the WB seg... and there is still room to do even better when 777-9s/777-8Fs start rolling of production lines to customers.

JayinKitsap wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

However, if the PIC has a good amount of experience, the co-pilot could become a training spot, instead of 1,500 hours say 500 hours.

Hate to break it to you, but a “digital cockpit” has zero bearing on the experience required from a FO. I speak as a guy who started flying 727s with a grand total of 255 hours under his belt, moving on to the 757 at 420 hours.

That the US has a moronic rule requiring 1500 hours for a FO has zero relevance to cockpit design or flight safety. Literally the entire world outside the US is happy placing 200-ish hour pilots in the right hand seat and, to the surprise of absolutely nobody, aircraft aren’t falling out of the skies left, right and centre because of it.

I was considering non-technical factors - labor contracts, public perception, and outdated rules. I see the 1500 hour a reality just like the RJ scope clauses, both deserve to sunset - if technical aspects support it. A more autonomous cockpit could be the opening spot for new FO's to get experience, yes 200 hours and a certain amount of simulator time out at the edges of the envelope.

I see the cockpit of the future (What FAA and EASA require! in a new model) being capable of full autonomy and on remote pilot (either emergency or normal). Keeping two in the cockpit is the minimum with current aircraft and for a lot of years will be needed until the systems are proven by 1,000 planes flying 10 to 15 years. Only then could single pilot + Robot w/remote pilot on emergency backup would be acceptable to the public. A much simpler case - railroads - still have 2 on each train in the US. Some Australian mine railroads are full auto but it is fully divided off like elevators are.

Both the 1500 hour rule and scope clauses are exclusively American inventions. You seem to be focusing exclusively on the US domestic market, which I don’t think will have any bearing on how commercial aviation develops globally.

Airbus have already demonstrated fully autonomous gate-to-gate flights, and I suspect that the A350F will be certified with a large amount of the autonomy. That will allow it to fly its full range with “just” two pilots onboard, but safety currently dictates that the crew numbers will not go below that.

Comparing aviation to railroads is neither here nor there; one of them moves in only one dimension and is steered by rails, the other moves in three dimensions. If the worst thing happens to a train, just cut the power and let it drift to a stop. Can’t do that with an aeroplane.

10 to 15 years for certified pilot + remote control operation is utterly unrealistic - it will take at least that amount of time to figure out a bullet-proof way of remotely controlling the aircraft. And once that’s achieved, why have pilots onboard at all? What is, perhaps, realistic is Airbus certifying the A350 for two pilot operation regardless of flight duration, allowing only 1 pilot to be at the controls during most of the cruise phase whilst the other one rests. Anywhere outside the US, obviously, since that market is governed by archaic rules and pilot unions.

Notice how Boeing are utterly absent from these early autonomy trials, bringing us back on topic.

On the military helicopter/rotorcraft side, Boeing:

Lost FLRAA (with Sikorsky -- I don't think their own entry made it past the wind tunnel stage)
Lost FARA downselect
MH-139 is an Agusta/Leonardo design
Apache is an "Old Boeing" design (ironically, it's a Hughes design brought into Boeing when MDD bought Boeing with Boeing money)
Chinook is an "Old Old Boeing" design

The success of the Chinook (and to a lesser extent that of the Apache) to me only shows how good Boeing engineering used to be in this area.

B777LRF wrote:

Notice how Boeing are utterly absent from these early autonomy trials, bringing us back on topic.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention.

"The planemaker’s autonomous flight technology being developed for military applications will eventually appear on commercial aircraft in the future, Dave Calhoun said in a Bloomberg TV interview. "

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... l-aircraft

Please refrain from the childish whining and just discuss the topic.

B777LRF wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

Hate to break it to you, but a “digital cockpit” has zero bearing on the experience required from a FO. I speak as a guy who started flying 727s with a grand total of 255 hours under his belt, moving on to the 757 at 420 hours.

That the US has a moronic rule requiring 1500 hours for a FO has zero relevance to cockpit design or flight safety. Literally the entire world outside the US is happy placing 200-ish hour pilots in the right hand seat and, to the surprise of absolutely nobody, aircraft aren’t falling out of the skies left, right and centre because of it.

I was considering non-technical factors - labor contracts, public perception, and outdated rules. I see the 1500 hour a reality just like the RJ scope clauses, both deserve to sunset - if technical aspects support it. A more autonomous cockpit could be the opening spot for new FO's to get experience, yes 200 hours and a certain amount of simulator time out at the edges of the envelope.

I see the cockpit of the future (What FAA and EASA require! in a new model) being capable of full autonomy and on remote pilot (either emergency or normal). Keeping two in the cockpit is the minimum with current aircraft and for a lot of years will be needed until the systems are proven by 1,000 planes flying 10 to 15 years. Only then could single pilot + Robot w/remote pilot on emergency backup would be acceptable to the public. A much simpler case - railroads - still have 2 on each train in the US. Some Australian mine railroads are full auto but it is fully divided off like elevators are.

Both the 1500 hour rule and scope clauses are exclusively American inventions. You seem to be focusing exclusively on the US domestic market, which I don’t think will have any bearing on how commercial aviation develops globally.

Airbus have already demonstrated fully autonomous gate-to-gate flights, and I suspect that the A350F will be certified with a large amount of the autonomy. That will allow it to fly its full range with “just” two pilots onboard, but safety currently dictates that the crew numbers will not go below that.

Comparing aviation to railroads is neither here nor there; one of them moves in only one dimension and is steered by rails, the other moves in three dimensions. If the worst thing happens to a train, just cut the power and let it drift to a stop. Can’t do that with an aeroplane.

10 to 15 years for certified pilot + remote control operation is utterly unrealistic - it will take at least that amount of time to figure out a bullet-proof way of remotely controlling the aircraft. And once that’s achieved, why have pilots onboard at all? What is, perhaps, realistic is Airbus certifying the A350 for two pilot operation regardless of flight duration, allowing only 1 pilot to be at the controls during most of the cruise phase whilst the other one rests. Anywhere outside the US, obviously, since that market is governed by archaic rules and pilot unions.

Notice how Boeing are utterly absent from these early autonomy trials, bringing us back on topic.

With the exception of the last sentence, this is the most accurate post I have seen in a long time.

The US market IS governed by old rules and pilots unions. The 1500 rule and FAR 117 were total caves to organized labor. Those initiatives were not based in safety but in politics. For example, the carve out for commuters in 117 and the lack of any allowance the the quality of prior training in the 1500 hour rule. Both of these rules are unsustainable imho. Non US carriers will lead the way to the next improvements.

oceanvikram wrote:

Is the Boeing order at cost price?
Were delivery times AI's main priority?
Is experience and infrastructure for the 737, 787 and 777 part of the consideration when ordering?
AI order, is so huge that maybe they considered a risk of ordering all from 1 OEM?

I am not privy to the information that would answer the above questions, but I am sure it would have been raised a few times.

No aircraft order is at or below cost price, dumping is after all, illegal in India. It would also be insanely irresponsible to sell aircraft below cost price (not list price just to clarify), especially when you already have a massive backlog and are a publicly traded company.

If so, then that's a competitive advantage to Boeing. Scaling up production capacity and having confidence that Boeing can meet contracted deadlines is important to running an aircraft manufacturing business, and is a sign of improvements at Boeing. Additionally, there are other competitive practices Airbus could have employed to secure the order regardless of the timeline. This is a moot point.

Perhaps, but again, that is part of the competitive advantage. Airbus would have had to make an initial case that ordering all their aircraft from a single manufacturer could have simplified their operations, and they could have provided the tools and training necessary to complete the transition with minimal additional cost.

It doesn't make sense that they wouldn't have considered this before talking with Airbus initially with hopes of getting a full standardized fleet. Additionally, it shows that AI sees little risk in choosing Boeing for a good portion of their future operations. This is a sign of improvements with their relationship with one another.

If the initial reports are accurate, there is absolutely no reason that AI would have not considered any those 4 questions before talking to Airbus initially. They had expectations, and Airbus gave them options that AI could not accept. Ultimately, this all shows that airlines do believe Boeing is turning things around, or at the very least, that the risk associated with future issues is not significant enough to swing an order...still a positive sign for Boeing.

Any rumors of Boeing re-opening the NMA project again?

IADFCO wrote:

On the military helicopter/rotorcraft side, Boeing:

Lost FLRAA (with Sikorsky -- I don't think their own entry made it past the wind tunnel stage)
Lost FARA downselect
MH-139 is an Agusta/Leonardo design
Apache is an "Old Boeing" design (ironically, it's a Hughes design brought into Boeing when MDD bought Boeing with Boeing money)
Chinook is an "Old Old Boeing" design

The success of the Chinook (and to a lesser extent that of the Apache) to me only shows how good Boeing engineering used to be in this area.

Nice cherry picking.

What about the Boeing T-7 trainer, MQ-25, MQ-28? All brand new cleansheet designs. They were started, designed, flown and are now ready for production in under 5 years. All done while they also built and flew the biggest rocket in human history.

More than 80% of the SLS Artemis rocket is built by Boeing. This is why only a quarter of Boeing staff is in Boeing Commercial Airplanes division because they build so much other stuff.

During that same period the only cleansheet aircraft Airbus has flown is the H160 helicopter. This is a fraction of the engineering effort. I have made my prediction that in 2030 Boeing will have multiples of the number of engineers compared to Airbus. So many new projects are in the pipeline for Boeing.

But this thread is about Boeing managers. Lots of managers. Lots of divisions. Lots of products. Only a couple products have problems.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/b ... prototypes

$9 billion of funding for FA-XX development. Do you think Lockheed will build the F-35, the USAF 6th gen fighter AND the US Navy 6th gen fighter?

JohanTally wrote:

As we all know Boeing winning big orders is because they offered fire sale prices(sarcasm).

Pretty sure the Saudi Arabian PIF could afford 100 a380s if they wanted to. They could have also afforded 80+ a350-1000s too ,no problem. They are not too desperate to settle for the cheapest option, they are wealthy and money is not a problem for them. So this throws your logic out the window.

They choose to order 70+ 787s because they perfectly suited their needs , the dreamliner is just that good. Obviously politics helped a little too, just like with most national airline orders placed today.

Sermons wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

As we all know Boeing winning big orders is because they offered fire sale prices(sarcasm).

Pretty sure the Saudi Arabian PIF could afford 100 a380s if they wanted to. They could have also afforded 80+ a350-1000s too ,no problem. They are not too desperate to settle for the cheapest option, they are wealthy and money is not a problem for them. So this throws your logic out the window.

They choose to order 70+ 787s because they perfectly suited their needs , the dreamliner is just that good. Obviously politics helped a little too, just like with most national airline orders placed today.

Also GE and Saudi Arabia have a partnership which may have played a role. But I agree especially after the last couple years of high oil prices the Kingdom could afford to order whatever jet. They made a conscious decision for the 787.

Sermons wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

As we all know Boeing winning big orders is because they offered fire sale prices(sarcasm).

Pretty sure the Saudi Arabian PIF could afford 100 a380s if they wanted to. They could have also afforded 80+ a350-1000s too ,no problem. They are not too desperate to settle for the cheapest option, they are wealthy and money is not a problem for them. So this throws your logic out the window.

They choose to order 70+ 787s because they perfectly suited their needs , the dreamliner is just that good. Obviously politics helped a little too, just like with most national airline orders placed today.

Besides the fact that there was a sarcasm indicator in the post you were responding to, rendering your reply pointless, your post is also illogical. That an airline has unlimited funds as you alleged doesn't mean they still won't be looking for good deals on purchases. Not saying it was a discount that led to the 787 order, but trying to discredit the advantage of one OEM giving a good deal on the basis of "the airline is so rich they don't need discounts" is silly, no one runs a business that way even if it's based on oil money. A good deal is a good deal.

Thread has run its course.