Never found a situation where an person I knew became more capable because he earned a master of business administration, the so-called MBA. A disaster for American industry.
Being a truly great manufacturing company requires a truly great company culture. That culture must be fostered over generations to maintain the generational knowledge that comes from the expensive lessons learned. By the time new and profit focused management realise how crucial the culture of it’s company is to success, they are already 20 years too late.
An accountant as a CEO? There is a saying in the oil industry. A growing company has a geologist as its CEO, a mature company has an engineer, a withering company has an accountant, and a failing company has a lawyer.
It's true that a failing company has a lawyer... The company that my dad's works in lead by a lawyer (after the founder passed away). And it's gradually falling, until it's bankrupt. Their ex-employee hasn't got their severance pay, including my dad...
Boeing's biggest nightmare is its own management. They moved to Chicago to become a finance and marketing focused company, then to Washington DC in order to become a lobbying company. Each move made them worse at making planes.
Their coming back to Seattle under the new CEO and I’m sure you’ll complain again anyways given what the media has taught you to do with 0 critical thinking
@@BusFan-nu1kd I don't really follow the media, I don't know what they say. I only pay attention to factual information. Much of what I think is contrary to prevailing ideas. But you can't always be different. I've also studied business management, so I pay a bit of attention to what's going on in that respect, as things change through the years. You, on the other hand, are repeating the current popular trope of the day without a single constructive idea. You'll probably change with the trends.
Boeing greatest fears 1. Losing stock price. 2. Planes falling apart. 3. Ex employee's. 4. Murder investigations. 5. Qualified QC workers. 6. Extra training for pilots. 7. Spending money. 8. Engineers. 9. Newly designed planes. 10. Quality products. 11. Time taken to sweep up drill bit shavings from cable trays. 12. Expensive locking bolts. 13. Paper trails. 14. Homesick astronauts.
It is a niche, the XLR will not be able to make it as well as a purpose built clean sheet design. Said in another way, the XLR will eventually be obsolete overnight..
It's not necessarily MBAs. It's Jack Welch sycophants. One of the best CEOs that Boeing had wasn't an engineer. He was a lawyer. What Boeing needs is a problem solver who has a long-term vision for the company and isn't concerned with short-term gains beyond what benefits the company in the long-term.
@@vawlkus Too big to fail company. 2nd largest defence contractor and the only thing they have going for them on the commercial front is that between them, Boeing and Airbus have 98% market share so no way Airbus can just ramp it up and pick up the slack. Boeing has to survive one way or the other.
@@VTdarkangel It's the short term profit perspective and that leads to no future. This is the end game of that play. A few people got very rich screwing Boeing out of their value.
@cageordie the short-term can't be ignored. It's when short-term value is prioritized over the long-term health of the company is when the problems arise. That's what Jack Welch did to GE, and that's what happened to Boeing. In an effort to cut costs for short-term gain in value, the long-term was sacrificed by souring relations with employees, which caused brain drain and quality control issues.
The A321neo XLR also has other improvements: 80% of the fuselage is strengthened by using thicker structural parts. It has an additional potable water tank, an optional additional waste tank, it has 3 zones for cabin climate controls instead of 2, added heated floors in the galleys for the crew, all new main landing gear and strengthened nose gear, both with completely new wheels. It also has a new belly fairing (as mentioned by Mentour Pilot), and new flaps.
That adds up to a lot of weight, which eats into efficiency. Not quite to the level of inefficiency of the 757, but could give a lot of airlines pause.
@@stephenj4937 It can also add those spare tanks up front for specific long-range routes. 5000 nm (basic napkin math) in a single-row airplane would be impressive and I can see a lot of non-passenger uses for it.
@@stephenj4937 The A321XLR still burns 30% less fuel per trip than the 757, which is significant. And the extra potable water tank is sourced straight from the Airbus ACJneo Business jet lineup. I also forgot to mention the new E-Rudder, an electronic rudder system sourced from the A350.
@igorGriffiths , that's the Jack Welsh way..and Calhoun was one of his deciples. Jack Welsh was a con man that single handedly ruined many great US companies.
@@igorGriffithsthat being said, I'm not sure how well a NMA program would be perceived on the back of the turbulent 787 introduction, and both 737 Max and 777X programs still in crisis mode. Why should the public trust this new clean sheet aircraft Boeing is going to rush through the door while also putting out two other programs on fire?
I love how Boeing's immediate reaction to a pair of fatal crashes resulting in scrutiny of a particular aircraft type they're building (that also happens to be archaic) is to double down on that type and cancel any new projects aimed at replacing said aging type in production... absolute galaxy brain decision.
I thought this when the crashes happened. The 737 design goes back to the 60's. It should have been replaced with a modern composite jet chassis similar to the 787 in design to compete with the A320 going forward.
@@zoidberg444 They did it to save money because new planes and certification plus retraining pilots is *VERY* expensive, so Boeing started to cut corners. They kept the archaic 737 for too long. It must go!
Boeing is just too arrogant to admit that they're lost to Airbus. I mean, calling your competitor's product 'niche' while you're struggling with certifications, delayed orders, quality control, whistleblowers, starliners etc is just beyond me.
@@seanromero2303 And you can fix people watching right wing news and buying into DEI is destroying the world like you have unless you’re a DEI post bot
Airbus did outsmart Boeing : by not screwing up quality for financial gains, by not leaving the midsize market, by not leaving the company in the hands of beancounters, by not falling into the "arrogant" mode prevalent at Boeing, and the list goes on...
I am from Hamburg and we are especially excited about the 321XLR because it's (mostly) built here but it also would allow our city to have a transatlantic connection again which we haven't had for decades.
I can see that happening more and more. With the big airports reaching capacity airlines will start offering flights from regional airports. Instead of you having to travel from Hamburg to Frankfurt and catch a plane to New York JFK you could catch a flight from Hamburg to Newark. Smaller airports, less traffic, closer to your home and where you actually want to go and so on. As a Brit I'm still pissed that BAe sold its 20% stake in Airbus for a measly couple of billion Euro twenty years ago. Still, at least all Airbus wings are still built here.
JFK vs Newark is a bad example. Both are 45 minutes from Manhattan. Delta and American Airlines only fly international from JFK. United only flies international from Newark, nothing to do with small vs big airport. All three of them will have A321xlrs but until the 757s are retired, if the A321xlrs fly from New York it will be to LA or Miami, not to Hamburg or Nice or Mallorca.
@@heylookarealdinosaur Delta has not ordered any XLRs so far. American and United both plan to fly the XLR into secondary airports in Europe and North Africa as well as South America.
@@heylookarealdinosaur If there are enough passengers an airline would fly from anywhere to anywhere. The failure of the A380 is because airlines didn't follow the hub and spoke model of using the giant hubs like Heathrow, JFK, LAX, CDG etc but flew smaller, fuel efficient, planes direct from smaller regional airports to other smaller regional airports. But you're right about Newark. I was thinking about LaGuardia.
Maybe instead of paying Calhoun $32.8 million to run the company into the ground, if Boeing had just fired him and used that money to hire more competent workers and start designing a new model aircraft that could be modified from the 737 to the 767 range, that would have worked a lot better for the company.
I prefer it to the standard Air NZ livery. I also think their leased 777-300ER from Cathay Pacific with the all white livery looks better than the standard one too.
Airbus appear to have a plan for a range of planes with consistent pilot training optimisation and interchangeability. Boeing does not appear to such a plan. Southwest and Ryanair (excluding Lauda) are "stuck" with 737s or would have to heavily invest in pilot training. Clever long term strategy for Airbus. For car drivers, it's like finally in the 1920s a convention grew to have the accelerator on the right, the brake left off that and any clutch pedal left of that again. Can you imagine trying to rent a strange car if that convention had not grown up?
@@connclissmann6514 A The concept of larger higher capacity 737’s invented the concept. That was the point, add 3rd world pilots and whammo. You get what’s going on today. If Boeing goes offshore I cannot blame them based on how they have been treated. $2.1 billion settlement than a completely unrelated issue from a contractor occurs. No crash, no injuries. A charge from the DOJ and another $451 million added on. The families of the crash, they think the extra money is theirs. I hope not.
F1 cars do not always have the "traditional" pedal arrangement. But Boeing is in no way an F1 car, not even near one. The 737 max is more like Al Bundy's Dodge.
Pilot training is cumbersome but a minor cost compared to fuel and maintenance. They need very efficient smaller planes with a roughy 3000nm range as they don't do transatlantic flights and often their larger 737s are 3/4 full. In fact, more than half of all of Southwest's flights are not even 1500nm. Paying 150 million per jet that can do everything is like buying one of those Swiss Army knives with the 50-70 functions when all you need is a basic knife that can do 8 or 10 things. I have one of those giant ones ( about 40-50 functions ). I take my Leatherman with me instead when I am camping. It does what I need for less cost and less weight. One is a curiosity I bought when I was young and a bit foolish, with bigger eyes than my capacity (lol) that sits in a drawer, and the other I keep in my car and use constantly.
@@todortodorov6056 I liken the Boeing family to the Ford Mustang. All variants of a fantastic game-changing design. That is 50+ years old at its core. Boeing's real issue is that they kept trying to refine and adjust the same formula rather than actual out of the box radical re-designs. And they are end of life. In a way, I see why their CEO said no new planes. It's not possible to compete any more with ancient fundamentals. Yes, I own a Mustang myself and love it. But it's simply not a modern driving experience.
You rent a car with a different configuration every time you go to the UK, Japan, Australia.. etc (unless you live in one of those backwards countries in which case the opposite is true).
This is exactly why you’ll keep contributing nothing to society! *They never ever do safety comparisons because you cannot do such comparisons in this industry unless you want a major lawsuit*
@@BusFan-nu1kd I never claimed to "contribute anything to society". You made that up because it's what you would do. In Europe we don't just kill whistleblowers but in the USA you do. And about big lawsuits, that's another big US thing and it almost never goes against domestic big business.
@@MentourNowThis is out of topic but can you cover the Japan Airlines Flight 516 accident? How does this do to the Airbus A350 after this unfortunate accident?
An important detail is that all A320/321 aircraft have a fuselage which is 1ft/30cm wider internally compared to all 737s, that’s an extra 2 inches of width per passenger. Very necessary in single aisle travel!
Should have. 25 years ago everyone feared this was going to happen when they absorbed McDonnell, but they soldiered on as the cracks kept growing. Now, it's a complete mess and won't likely ever regain its momentum.
Like most large US corperations it will compete in court saying Airbus is EU goverment supported demanding tariffs and anti monpoply action by the courts. It seems to be the trend in the USA at present, the quality of your legal team is more important than the quality of your product.
At this point Boeing management has screwed the company so badly that there's a better chance for a third company to enter the market. Normally the barrier to entry is so high that there's no way a newcomer could compete but with this niche left unfilled and considering if you're only going to have one aircraft on offer at first having something in the middle would be the best I think it could actually happen.
Bombardier tried with the C300, but Boeing and American protectionism killed them off. Though it did allow Airbus to sneak in, get a plane for free and sell it in the US.
@@karlbassett8485 yeah, an American company might have more luck which in some ways would make me happy but with our lucky lately it would probably be another Silicon Valley attempt at aerospace that gets people killed. What we need is Burt Rutan to link up with someone competent who has VC money haha
At this point Boeing needs to merge with Lockheed Martin and form a new company. Their combined technology and engineering would make it a better competitor to Airbus.
A nearly 10 year waiting list is a problem and why Embraer and Comtac and others are now looking at the large demand and getting into the game in a serious manner. The main issue isn't the long-haul routes, but the tons of shorter, often less than 1500 nm routes and a massive fleet of aging planes worldwide. Money to be made for sure. :) Boeing at this point could actually make money by selling a new version of the 727. Demand is that high.
Airbus are terrified that Boeing will go bust because think what the reaction of many governments will be to an Airbus monopoly. You can bet both the Chinese and US governments would both immediately pour many billions into creating a competitor. Hell, the EU would regulate them to death. It's far better to be the market leader in a duopoly. It is the same reasoning the Microsoft had in the early 1990s when Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy - they actually covertly gave Apple a large loan.
@@martinluke9470 Not much you can do when your competitor is imploding and everyone else left the commercial sector. Same as we see now with Intel and AMD. Poor Intel can't hardly keep from tripping over its own feet. This (very likely) strike will probably push Boeing over the edge. I get it that the workers need more, but the company is NOT doing well - for real this time.
@@blatherskite9601 not always true, if the company has enough market dominance that there's no more expansion possible or customers have no choice that makes sense, it's a scummy practice, but I can see why.
Look at what happened to a major grocery chain that ran beautifully until it became in ester dependent and later was taken over by another grocery giant, but is run as two separate entities! They forgot that the employees are the foundation of a company and the administration is the roof, and is often too heavy for the structure until a lot of the deadwood is removed which is often too late!
And shouldn't be by artificially increasing invester gains by simply raising prices for the consumer and keeping wages low which is too often the case especially after a good company goes public! Such as the grocery chain I was referring to!
18:43 "Airbus had long delivery times" Boeing would have long delivery times too if they installed every single bolt in all the doors and performed QC on their products.
@@marnig9185 Right, like when you prang a MD-80 and everyone slaps their heads and goes "screwjacks! Of course!" when the FAA report is released. But we won't be thinking of screwjacks as a cause initially because most control specs have been written in blood, you know. So it would be a (ahem) niche error that is widespread and/or a new unanticipated error like the Hawaii 737 that suffered aluminum fatigue which happened 40 years or so after air passenger pressurization started in the late 40s with the DC-7 and B377.
Boeing missed its perfect opportunity about 10 years ago. With the 787 selling well all they had to do was scale it down to a 757 sized single isle medium range aircraft, using all the same tech and design as the 787 and dual rated as per the 757/767 arrangement. That would have been a world beater.
319 neo has preety much being made to allow nepal and other over-elevated countries to operate safely. It exists for diplomatic reasons more than comercial ones.
In addition to your thought, it also better fits the ULCC business model. Spirit ended up converting their A319neo’s to A321neos which they are probably regretting right about now. It’s basically the same reason @mentournow explained in a prior video why Boeing even bothered with the Max 7.
The international airports in Nepal are actually not that elevated: Pokhara with 2,625 ft / 800 m, Tribhuvan (Kathmandu) with 4,390 ft / 1,338 m and Gautam Buddha Airport (Siddharthanagar) only at 344 ft / 105 m. The Airports in Mexico City, Denver, Alcantarí (Sucre, Bolivia), El Alto (Bolivia) and Lhasa are much higher. I just checked at planespotters: Tibet Airlines (6 planes in operation) and China Southern Airlines (4 planes in operation) are the biggest operators. Tibet Airlines has already a large fleet of Airbus 319-100 and 319-200 (33 in total). They operate only Airbus planes.
Since 2017 20 A 319neo´s were manufactured - yes: 20 in 7 years! - 12 of them were selled to Airlines from China, 4 to Businessjet Provider, 1 to a private Customer and 1 to an Airline from Uzbekistan, the remaining 2 are the two Prototypes which stayed at Airbus. The Launch Customer was K5 Aviation, a German Businessjet-Provider. The Backlog of the A 319neo contains 50 Orders (yes: 50!): 17 from Airlines from China, 4 from Businessjet-Provider and 29 from at the moment unknown Customers, but they´re probably also Airlines from China, Businessjet Provider and maybe a few private Customers. The Chinese Airlines are using them for mountainous Airports in China (Tibet Airline in fact got 7 of the 12 A 319neo, which were delivered to China), the Businessjet-Provider are using them for "best Customers", who´re able and willing to pay for "more" than a Gulfstream or a Bombardier Global.
Glad to work as a development and certification engineer on the XLR in Toulouse! Hope it will keep its promises with its entry into service within the next few months :) Maybe that by comparing B757 and A321nei XLR, Boeing forget that for XLR, the same type rating as for A321neo + a small 1/2 day training are needed.. Moreover, you can dispatch the XLR for a short haul or long haul flight with no constraints
So you work for Airbus? That's cool 😊 Seems like your company is in a good shape with your namesake at the helm haha 😅 Hopefully you enjoy working for them 😊
The only thing Boeing should fear right now is Boeing, they are their own worst enemy. Airbus, COMAC, the economy, etc. could never do as much damage to Boeing as Boeing inflicted on itself.
Boeing is too busy get It's sh!t in order to a afraid of anything right now. They're at least moving in the right direction. Ortberg is taking up residence in the Renton area, to be on top of things. That's a plus. Maybe they'll move the entire C suite back to Renton
Since they were monopoly Europe wants to be loy😅al to Brittain. Airbus and 321. Boeing made too many management mistakes. Things that will take too long to catch up. Like tortoise - & the hare story . I hope they get their game back. Bless them all..
Airbus backlog is a good thing for Boeing. It means that customers who desire earlier delivery dates will choose them. Remember that unfilled orders are like unrealized gains. Another pandemic and there could be huge cancellations.
Excellent point about flexibility. Airlines with large fleets find it useful to have a backup plan for when planes are taken out of service at short notice due to a technical issues. It makes no commercial sense to fly an A321 XLR on short haul routes permanently but to do so just occasionally will not put a big dent in the finances. For Boeing to dismiss the XLR as a ‘niche product’ maybe to just reassure themselves. If Airbus go on to sell 2000 XLRs then this will have been a very big niche.
It won’t because there simply isn’t the market for it. And the A321 XLR will suffer from the same problems the 757 did outside of its intended role. Too big and too heavy with too little capacity.
Well, for some airlines the 321XLR is a game changer. Example: Icelandair. Icelandair is switching its fleet to Airbus and I'd have a hard time swallowing any explanation that ignores the 321XLR. The XLR is probably the single most important deciding factor. There are supporting factors but they mostly make the switch more of a slam dunk for Icelandair which has ordered a considerable number of Airbus aircraft and nearly all of them are XLRs. To get to SF or LA from Iceland you need a 767 or a A330, but they're too big for developing small markets. The 321XLR opens up the entire US west coast, Mexico City and plenty of other destinations. Many, many airlines rely mostly on mid-range sized aircraft in the 737, 757, 320, 321 class and for all of them the 321XLR is an option and opportunity for growth and market development that completely and utterly outclasses anything offered by Boeing. The 321XLR opens up the the entire US east coast and many Caribbean destinations to many of the westernmost cities in in Europe, non-stop without flying wide body. So, Icelandair's opportunity comes quite possibly with some new competition. The 321XLR may snip off some of Icelandair's advantage but they can make up some of that and attract new customers by also switching to 321XLR (and eventually A330 when the need arises). So thinking one turn ahead, Icelandair's switch is perhaps best considered as a forced hedging move even without their own extensive opportunities. 321XLR opens India to easyjet should they want it ... in short this really is a game changing plane. It massively extends the reach of mid-range operators. I don't know that easyjet stands a chance here, but heck they usually do. Icelandair had a "Big Think" in the latter half of the 2010s and decided on the 737-Max. My feeling at the time: Big Think -> Big mistake. I feel somewhat vindicated. In short the 321XLR changes the mid-range landscape and operators that make the wrong aircrarft choices here are possibly going out of business.
And Icelandair is competing in transatlantic market for smaller European airports with no direct flight there - e.g. for me to fly to the US I need to go to Franfurt / Heathrow / Helsinki etc first, so why not have a 4-hour flight to Iceland and then 5 or 6 hours to the US, instead of 2.5 hours to Germany and then 8 or 9 to the US? If the price is the same..
@@ivankuzin8388Icelandair was flying from Edmonton in Western Canada to Keflavik, and then to Paris with a minimal amount of layover time. That was far more practical and shorter than flying to Toronto or Montréal and then Paris. But they stopped serving Edmonton 5 or 6 years ago. However, this year I discovered that KLM is doing a non-stop flight between Edmonton and Amsterdam.
The 321 XLR won't do western Europe to west coast U.S. It might be able to just make it eastbound but aviation is rightfully conservative and generous margins are allowed for.
I have to take exception to your suggestion that the B757 only became a long haul aircraft after it finished production! I joined Monarch Airlines, in the U.K. ( now sadly deceased 😢) on the first of January 1990 and by then Monarch was well established on the North Atlantic with the 757. My ETOPS check in July 1990 was to Acapulco ( via Bangor, Maine ), Mexico, while my first long haul flight as a captain on the 757 was to Bangkok ( via Bahrain)! Oh happy days.
I worked for one US airline in the UK and then three in FL including Eastern. Unfortunately, all four went bankrupt, but I stayed in the US. I miss the 70’s and 80’s when the industry was so much more exciting and of course free travel. I don’t remember Monarch, but I do remember British Caledonian, Laker and Peoples Express.
I'm not very into aircrafts, but to me it seems that airbus and Embraer have the planes of the future, while Boeing is putting resources into doors not falling off and getting back astronauts from space.
@offshoretomorrow3346 Yes, it was. At a time when there was nothing else like it. But the world is moving on, and someone made something better, decades ago, and Boeing was so ignorant to respond.
@@offshoretomorrow3346 WAS is the word but the A320 is a better Plane. yes i have been on a South west 737/ 700 Boeing should have stop at the 737/900.
Thanks for the cogent and objective commentary. It's refreshing to get a straight-up discussion based in fact and solid reasoning; rather than sensationalized hyperbole, or hate bashing for the sake of bashing by a bunch of prigs. On a separate note, Ortberg says he's moving to Renton and taking up office in the old HQ building. Good for him. That's promising.
As a retired airline pilot/executive I always enjoy your even handed treatment of the current issues. The video on the 757/A321 NEO was exceptionally well done. However, I would like to give you a little more background on the 737 evolution. As early as 2005 Boeing was conducting studies on a replacement for the 737. As part of their work, they utilized teams of airline executives to develop the baseline airplane. In those days, this was the 737 RS project and I was one of the industry participants. The project sort of went 'back burner' after the 2008 recession, but was resurrected a few years later as the NMA. While this was all transpiring, the 'takeover' of the old Boeing engineers by the McDonnell Douglas financial engineers was completed and work all but stopped on the NMA. Basically, the new management was not in a mood to 'bet the company' which is how we got the Boeing 707 and 747. Curiously, as I slipped off into retirement the NMA was positioned to be about 220/230 seats in a two class configuration with a 5,000 mi. range. Moreover, there was a lot of sentiment to make it a twin aisle with 2-3-2 seating. With cooperation from the engine manufacturers the airplane could have been available right about now or next year. I wonder what THAT would have done for the 321???
Fun fact, looking at your T-shirt! The very first time I ever flew it was on a Comet IV (with the rounded windows). I am quite proud of that (flying on the first commercial jet liner, even if it was the MKIV version). The Original version was withdrawn from service and replaced by the Comet II and then IV (1958) before I was born . The Comet III was a prototype that never saw production, but lead to the fully redesigned MK IV.
From a passenger perspective I recently flew from between Boise and Buffalo via ATL. The ATL-BOI legs were a 737 (I forget which one this was Delta) the ATL BUF leg was an A320. It was a much nicer experience and noticeably longer.
While I am happy to see the success of Airbus (I'm french), I am sad at the same time for Boeing. Competition is a good thing and I wished Boeing would never have dropped the NMA project, Boeing 797 would have been a great opponent to the Airbus a321. The Boeing 737 is a good plane but it is an old plane which has been stretched way too much, it should be replaced but I am worried that we are already past its replacement date... and announcing a possible replacement now would just end up in even lower sales.
Airbus have been smart in the way they have designed their planes. They didn't copy Boeing's low design for example, meaning larger engines, longer fuselages etc were all possible. Hence the NEO didn't need an MCAS, and the A321 was possible. I often fly from New Zealand to Australia, and Air NZ do exactly as you mentioned, but even down to the times of the day. Sometimes it's in a 787-9, sometimes a 777-300 and other times in an A321NEO. I might also add that the A321NEO is nice and quiet to fly on too.
The 737's low design was specifically to accommodate manual cargo loading and passenger stairs. Airbus designed the 320 much later so could assume bulk cargo loading and airstairs - which by that time they most airports had.
Don't quite agree about the "quiet" bit for the A321neo. I've taken four flights on them this year with SATA (Azores), and they were all noisy. Different engine technology, obviously, but the loud noise startled me. It reminded me of the roar the B707 made taking off fully loaded. Vastly better climb rate, of course. Maybe AirNZ's Pratt & Whitney engines are quieter than the CFM Leap-1 engines SATA uses, or perhaps AirNZ uses a higher grade of oil ;-) The B787 is the quietest plane I've flown in recently - GE engines, I believe.
@@Peasmouldneo is less noisy than max. Even with the same leap engines. I believe Airbus uses more sound insulation in the fuselage than Boeing does. Across all types. 787 is decent but the quietest cabin by far is the A380.
So A321XLR has European regulator approval, and possibly FAA approval soon. Thanks for pointing out the design modifications for the special tank - so interesting. I should also note that A320 series cabin is slightly wider than 737 or 757.
Boeing could have probably kept iterating the 737 except that its low ground stance limited how much it could be stretched while reasonably avoiding tail strikes, or it would need a major redesign for significantly taller landing gear, longer wings, etc. which at that point you may as do the clean sheet. Its clear what is needed is a clean sheet design where they do the studies for a 280 seat jet at full stretch, then work that design down to 180-200 seats for the initial model, releasing the variants in succession based on market demand. This could be one or possibly two families where one maybe has a performance focus and the other efficiency, but it seems both should be possible with engine options in one core design. Variant 1 - Max PAX+Cargo Capacity, Low Range, less Performance, Max Efficiency Variant 2 - High PAX+Cargo Capacity, Med Range, More Performance, Med Efficiency Variant 3 - Med PAX+Cargo Capacity, High Range, less Performance, High Efficiency Variant 4 - Low PAX+Cargo Capacity, Max Range, less Performance, Max Efficiency etc. where its mostly just changes to engines, belly fuel capacity, and stretch lengths ordered.
SMH right off. What Boeing management has done to that company is just plain criminal. It's impossible to believe they blew it in such a monumental way.
It's _Not_ "Boeing Management"!!! Boeing Management left the building in 1997. It's _McDonnell Douglas_ Management + Wall Street. Look, I get it; we like to romanticize Boeing as the great American _Commercial/Passenger_ aircraft manufacturing company of 50 years ago. When the merger consumated, Boeing ... I mean _McDonnell Douglas_ reverse-acquired Boeing to support its DoD ambitions. Airbus has $65Billion in annual revenue, from selling mostly passenger aircraft. Boeing has about *$300 BILLION* in DoD contracts, and $80 Billion in annual revenue - mostly from Hypersonic Missiles systems, to those "2,000 Lbs. munitions dropped on children", to petal mines. This is NOT your Father's Boeing. This is pure Evil.
the 321neo is a wonderful aircraft - have flown it recently on two carriers - DL BOS-SFO and UA ORD-SFO - F on DL and Y on UA - both great - these are the best single aisle aircraft in the skies now
It is a niche but a niche that needs to be filled. That's why you have a range of products. If you don't fill that niche, your competitors will. Once your competitors have a way in, they can start chipping away at your other product line sales. Before you know it your competitors are out selling you 5 to 1 and you are just left wondering what happened.
@dsmx85 Except not. The A340 and A380 fill niche markets. Remember that Boeing has never clean-sheeted another airliner with more than two engines since the 747. The A340 and A380 were huge money losers for Airbus. Boeing did some small modifications to make the 747-8 and split the already tiny jumbo market to ensure that Airbus would lose even more money. People don’t want to go long distances on narrow body aircraft. The only places it works is long thin routes where there simply isn’t enough demand to make a wide body profitable. And lots of airlines would rather reduce frequency to fill larger planes (since there likely isn’t competition on those routes) rather than alienate customers with horrible aircraft.
@@calvinnickel9995 I'd like to add from the maintenance perspective, the 757 is far less troublesome than the A330s (barring that one incident with the goose, but Canadian geese are the devil). The 757 goes AOG far less often and gets thru its maintenance checks quicker than any other aircraft in our fleet. Every time we hear that parts for the A330s need shipped, everyone goes "fucking Airbus".
Whilst they should be fearful of losing safety record..... Everything else is secondary. I have already started to go out of my way or spend significantly more just to avoid a Boeing flight..
Losing wheels is fine, I trust my pilots training... But losing the door causing rapid depressurization, or adding nose dive MCAS without telling pilots; That's what I fear. If my pilot doesn't know shit Boeing has done, how will he keep me safe!?
Boeing are finished building new aircraft. Updating the 787 for the next 20 years is the best they can do. The 1950s 737 and the 1960s 777 are at the endpoint in any further development. AIRBUS. Have a fleet of aircraft that will be easily upgraded to keep ahead of whatever Boeing decides to do. Airbus are the future. Boeing are the past.
@@Danimalpm1 keep clutching at those straws. Boeing outselling Airbus in a much smaller volume market, however, the A350 is by far the best wide body in the air at the moment along with the A380. 777's are old and tired now and who knows when the 777x will eventually start in service
One thing to note about XLR Vs normal NEO with ACTs, is the MTOM and MLM. Installing the ACTs means, that the operator has to trade- more fuel means less traffic load onboard with the same masses limiting the takeoff and possible overweight landing. With increased masses on XLR the operator doesn't have to make that trade, enabling transport of the same amount of traffic load, but on longer distances
I finally had a reason to purchase tickets for the first time since 2020 today. The cheapest options were all on Boeing aircraft. I just couldn’t do it. I happily paid 20% more to fly on Airbus. Maybe I’m being a bit too over-the-top but the thought of flying Boeing keeps me up at night.
Jag måste in och lämna lite extra kärlek för den fantastiska mix av nytta, kunskap och dramaturgi du skapar med dina videor. Jag är chef för ett boutique MCN i Sverige (Ninetone Group AB) och varandes ett stort fan, erbjuder jag att hjälpa dig med vad som helst i RUclipss tekniska universum, kanalutveckling och Googlerelationer med crew/villkor-ratios jag tror ingen annan kan ge dig. Du har, globalt sett, en av världens bästa producerade kanaler. Gratulerar till framgången och all respekt för det ni levererar och ditt goda humör, känsla för kvalitet och härliga leverans i kamera. Med vänlig hälsning, /Stefan Hallgren.
Do you remember when UK left the Airbus project in 1969 ? New York Times 11 April 1969 « Britain Abandons the European Airbus Project; *Believes Building the Plane Is a Losing Proposition* »😂 Fortunately France asked Germany if they wanted to continue the A300 project, and signed an agreement 50-50 at 1969 Paris Air Show. Hawker Siddeley would stay in as a sub-contractor, but without a further £35 million German loan HS wouldn't have been able to buy the machinery.
Boeing returning to its engineering glory days. Wow, I see no signs of that happening, too short-sighted. Once you drop the ball like Boeing did in you're story, recovery requires a miracle.
... or at least a restored culture and a long time. Due to the lack of competitive capacity, Boeing could probably still do it if its Board had the vision.
There needs to be an in-depth documentary/study about Boeing’s leadership, management style, and decision making process since their inception. They’re so off track it’s honestly bewildering for this size of company.
I loved the 757 and 767 aircraft. I live near Denver, and it's definitely a hot and high airport in the summer, and offers direct flights to Europe. I remember my first dual aisle plane was a 767 we took to Orlando back in the 80's. A few years ago I took an Iceland Air 757-200 from Gatwick to Denver (though Iceland). My father in law used to load cargo for DHL, and his favorite was the 757. Their landing gear is so tall, they look like flamingos. I was sad to hear when they were discontinued.
As you mentionned cabin layout of this versatile a321 neo/xlr is an issue for passenger experience. flown last week in asia a 6hours a321neo with short haul cabin design: hard seats not reclining, no personal entertainement system, not enough toilets, lots of crew for service, but an overall bad experience. On return flight got in addition a diversion with 2hours extra flight+1 hour wait time in the diversion airport due to weather. Total 9hours+ in this indigent cabin😅
@Sillysillylittleman ... you are neither silly nor little...your insight is SPOT ON. All I can remember is that former CEO standing at that podium and in front of the WORLD, *blamed those pilots* for those 737MAX8 crashes. Shame on him!
Its funny how when Boeing misses a bet is either lets rush plane development and cause two crashes or "niche market"... In the same breath they claim 737 Max 10 order books as a success (about 450), and niche market the a321xlr (more than 550)... We know how this is going to end...we have seen a similar moving when the a320neo came out...
Thank you for taking. an extremely complicated topic and breaking it down. And those previous videos about the 757 et al (which I had seen prior) made a lot of this new info make sense. You’re the best!
Another advantage of the A321 XLR, which might be useful in the future, they can be used for evac flights, when large A330 MRTT or similar aircraft are not required. (E.g. Just a small group of people to exfil or forward bases can be used.)
Good video and interesting. I had a couple of thoughts while watching. The first is the mention of the Boeing CEO. One has to wonder if he was an Airbus "plant" with all the bad decisions he made that harmed Boeing in so many ways. The second concerns a chance for Boeing to get back in the game. Although the Boeing 767 as an airliner was discontinued, the manufacture of the airframe continues as the USAF KC-46. This means that the basic airframe assembly process has not been discontinued, just at a lower volume. Why couldn't Boeing just follow the Airbus example and create a 767 NEO.. The development cycle would be reduced in both design time and cost. The -200 and -300 already have been made in LR versions and by adding newer, more fuel efficient engines and improvements from "lessons learned", have a good competitor for the A321 NEO. It would have the probability of common type rating for existing 757/767 operators and a large increase in cargo capacity, while using the existing 767 ULDs, over the A321. Training for the pilots and mechanics would be cost effective like your airline transitioning from 737 NG to the 737 MAX. It could be a win/win for both Boeing and the airlines. Just a wild thought from someone that is neither an aeronautical engineer or an airline executive.
They've considered a re-engined 767 already. As you write, they make the KC-46 and actually they still make the 767-300F freighter, too. But new engines that would fit under the wing would be difficult to find -- they would need to convince GE to develop a modified version of the GEnX of the 787/747-8, to make it work. Even if they could do it, the plane would probably be too heavy and/or not efficient enough, unless they also make a new wing for it... which is what they did with the 777X, which isn't going well (or fast). Probably a topic for another video
@@MentourNow Thanks for the reply. I must have missed that they had considered it. I was thinking more in the line of the RR Trent engines of the A330 NEO. Your knowledge level is MUCH better than mine.
Single aisle air craft are not suitable for more than 4 hrs flight, especially in the cramped economy configuration. maximum 5 hrs. I don’t think trans Atlantic flights will be favoured in this A 321 XLR. If that was the idea, the aircraft is a misfit. One option is to make it a total luxury premium economy type - only 2 +2 configuration with ample elbow space. The capacity will be then about 140, but fares can be appropriately adjusted. Another opening for this aircraft will be like 3 hr flights that can return without refuelling at the first destination. Faster turn around.
This is so sad for Boeing, their workers, and American industry in general. I am really wondering how and why Calhoun made the industry’s worst strategic decision in decades. Your reasoning explaining the A321-family’s success is very clear and logical. Even without the hindsight we have now, Calhoun should’ve been capable of seeing the same wheels in motion. So, if he did, why did he decide against at least keeping Boeings development of a ‘797’ alive?
Because the numbers added up to it being no better economy, no better capacity, and not less expensive to make than the competition. Basically like comparing a Honda minivan to a Toyota one. Nearly identical specs for a "new" vehicle/plane. When you need a full re-design with the next generation in mind. Something radically different that breaks new ground, or people will simply keep buying the Airbus models they know and like.
@@plektosgaming the Airbus A32X airframe is nearing 40 years of age now. The NEO range has new engines, wings and avionics, but in the end it’s only the better choice because the 737 base design is even older. With newer materials and most likely better aerodynamics, Boeing could easily have beaten today’s A32X NEO even with similar engines. The problem Boeing is facing now is airlines who used to fly Boeing, are switching ecosystem because they can no longer wait. It’s going to be much harder to win those customers back with a hypothetical mid 2030’s new Boeing MMA/737 replacement. Especially since Airbus will very likely be targeting their A32X replacement around the same timeframe.
Its hard to blame Calhoun because the real reason for that decision is simply that Boeing no longer has the financial reserves to risk a new clean sheet design - if the process went awry as the 787 did the company really would be bankrupted. That is because of a string of awful strategic decisions which predated him. Of course he dressed it all up as "it aint broke so we aint fixing it" but few people in the industry were fooled.
@@kenoliver8913 It will be bankrupted anyways if it doesn't innovate. I do blame him as he's part of that generation of "leaders" who thinks of business in terms of only loss and profit and his own golden parachute at the end. When he gets booted from this job, eventually, he will crawl like a roach to some other company. Most likely back to Blackstone. This current group of "leaders" will send the next year flinding blame everywhere but themselves.
With the Starliner stuck at the ISS it looks like Boeing’s decision to invest billions was a bet on the wrong horse. They could’ve had a decent midsize model to compete with Airbus by now. Instead they’ve shown they can’t build new jet aircraft or space craft. It’s really sad, and the executive suite needs some serious change.
All i am hearing so far in the video is reasons why Boeing should take a look at Max and Neo programs and redesign the 757 with new engines and bring it back to life. It might be slightly overweight as it was overbuilt as you stated to fit the difficult airports, but having 5k planes in back log would sureley entice some boeing loving airlines to go for the engine upgraded 757. Boeing needs this to be able to develop a not new airplane and have it flying faster (less trouble with certification) then when they choose to develop new planes in that capacity.
When plane spotting on the east coast, I feel 321 and 787s will flow constantly while West coast will be 350s and 777x. Boeing has yielded the role of the 757 and 777 for retain the old 767 and 747 role. The 321 and 787 will probably be the 2 most common aircraft respective to their roles.
With the horrible business practices Boeing has been doing the last decade they didn’t just quit the mid sized market, it quit the aviation industry. And I only fly on carriers that DO NOT use Boeing equipment.
@@SweetCloud0598 nice, thanks for the compassion of a fear that is irrational but genuine. I get that statistically flying is the safest way to travel, but the fear of flying is irrational and if I can reasonably avoid doing it I will, but I will fly if there is no other reasonable way. I hope you never develop a fear of anything, and if you do that you receive more understanding than you have shown a stranger online 🫶
I admire the astronauts that trust going into space with a Boeing product, albeit the helium scare could have been a lot worse, but nevertheless, for now they are stranded up there!
Half the aircraft in the sky on any given day are Boeing. Probably more than half, actually. I hear this claim a lot these days and I’m not sure I buy it because most people are sensitive to pricing and convenience above all else.
The 321N is such an awesome aircraft. We travel an extra hour to major airports to get one over a standard 73-8 from our regional with our favorite airline.
It looks like there is too litte competition in the aircraft manufacturing industry. One manufacturer doesn't bother to update its product because it has only one competitor. This competitor makes a slighly better product, but also doesn't need and doesn't want to improve their product because then the first manufacturer would possibly be forced to get off their arse. Also, they don't upscale their production too much so that the first competitor can still live comfortably off the orders of customers who can't wait for decades.
"One manufacturer doesn't bother to update its product" I cant agree with your view that manufacturers can't be bothered. The costs involved in developing new aircraft are truly astronomical. The B777 X is years late and it will be another year at least before the first plane will be delivered (and paid for) Meanwhile Boeing has to absorb all the development costs upfront. Furthermore it will be years in to the future before the project will make a profit as the profit stream usually comes from volume sales and the sale of spare parts. New planes don't need much spare parts. While I have zero sympathy for Boeing executives and their wall street pals, I do understand the tightrope all aviation manufacturers are walking. Its not a business for the fainthearted,
In my line of engineering (vehicles) to bring a design back is not much different to starting from scratch, you might have 50-70% of the original design concepts but the actual designs would be redone in line with the state of the art cad, materials, joining practices, the interior designs would all be fresh, the electrics, hydraulics and hvac could be adapted from other vehicles but you have to start again all of the legislative requirements, testing, validation, the negotiation with suppliers, manufacturing, logistics, etc.
I am an American and a proud American. I visit Boeing Plaza in Oshkosh during AirVenture in Kosh every few years. I have loved Boeing and don't want them to fail. It's a matter of economic and even national security. There is so much greed in Boeing management though that I don't even care now. Way to represent Boeing, argh! Go Airbus!
@oscarwandel9612 You just lack the foresight of a true genius CEO. If you dig deep enough, surely you will come out of the other end eventually. (Make sure you negotiate your bonus and sell your shares before your inevitable success can become public, though.)
Boeing used to be run by engineers. They used to be on top and didn't have doors falling off their planes. * CEO needs to take guidance from President Biden and step down while the company still has a chance. * Take control of and be much more involved in the construction of your planes. Relying on 3rd party contractors is not working! * Stop worrying about stock price and how much they own. Fix the problems, and these will come back on their own. * Hire, promote forward-thinking engineers. * Engineer and build some new planes.
Lots and lots of 737, 747, 727, 707 crashes. Same with Airbus takes a very long time, airbus almost 50 years, to become a major manufacturer of large jet aircraft. Well I like Elon Musk and the stuff that he's doing, he's not in the business right now at least of creating a new airline, whose stocks don't pay dividends, nor are they building new passenger aircraft, because there are Half a dozen major league companies in the US the UK Germany, Canada, Brazil, and Russia, all having one or more long lived Major aircraft manufacturer.
@@Josie.A.F ach no, it really is a team effort bud. We have a fantastic and extremely talented team of wizards. Our own little Hogwarts, if you will! lol
I feel like the recurring lesson of this channel (maybe implicit and unintended) is that airliner concepts are often prematurely cancelled, that, given enough time, almost any configuration will find an emerging market. Of course, the difficulty is in the wait, and in the potential to update an old design for a new role. Perhaps not practical.
Nobody seems to worry about those things with the A-380 3 story plane! Lufthansa in Frankfurt has a real need for those, or did the last time I heard about it!
@@JabsbshsReally? Airbus has not announced that as of yet, and deliveries are scheduled for this year. Given it’s range, airlines will need to schedule up to 3 pilots, and to please regulators, the crew rest area will need to provide lie-flat seating with a privacy curtain. With this, they are legal for flights up to 12 hours, well beyond what the XLR is capable of. While a dedicated and separate rest cabin would provide better rest, I don’t bet on airlines to spend extra for that when all they need to do is set aside a first class seat and provide a curtain. This also gives them the flexibility to sell that seat to passengers on routes not requiring a third pilot.
@@RobertsonDCCD A lot of first class seating these days are effectively small cabins in their own right. Though asking airlines to give up such profitable seats is pushing it if they can find space somewhere else is asking a lot.
@@soilentgreen7 It could and will be used when only 2 pilots are required. It also has the range to stretch into 3 pilot territory, so it just depends on the airline and how they want to use it. A permanent crew rest compartment will eat up customer space, no way around it. The most sensible move will be to use first class seats when required for the resting pilot. Flight attendants, however, will not be treated to such accommodations.
First choice after being a truck driver in the Army was City transit. It was a very bad area and when we had layoffs I said "Next!". Then I did cross country for a few months and settled at Viking Freight. Bought up two and half years later by I thinknit was Roadway, the FedEx. By then I moved to Alabama and settled in Nursi.g school. 30 years later I am retired and miss the hell outta it. Women are better drivers especially at that age. Two pet peeves, Flip Flops and fuel lines. Especially as a woman driver I would have never have been taken seriously wearing flip-flops. Hell I wouldn't wear tennis shoes either at the time. And fuel lines?? OMG when I was OTR my 2nd lead driver would have shot me if I had left the truck on the fuel line for one minute longer than absolephuckinlutly neccesary. Keep on Trucking and Stay safe out there.
Boeing's next midsize plane will probably have two aisles and a 2-3-2 economy layout, like a 767. At least that was one of the last configurations before the NMA was postponed indefinitely.
@@MentourNow Exactly. I wanted to mention 767 but it has been out of production for years. So probably instead of developing a new NMA, it makes sense to just build a smaller version of 787. May be more cost-effective.
The problem is that physics says that the way to go is long and narrow. Because a short and wide fuselage has more drag than a thin and long one. Airbus also floated 2 aisle oval shaped, wide and short design concepts in the capacity range of the A320/737, but there is a reason it never materialized.
My wife and I just flew on a 321 this past June from Dulles to Dublin, Ireland and back (Aer LIngus). It was really not that great. The plane was an older version of the A 321 and the seating and entertainment reflected that. The crew complained that the galley was too small and that had very little space to work. I agree. The seats were not uncomfortable and the space between seats was not worse that was I found on some wide bodies. But t was a small plane for a transatlantic flight. We got anA 321 from Dublin to Rome and that was a much nicer flight. I am Franco-American, and have flown the transatlantic route a zillion times for the past 42 years. I flew on DC8 and 707 during the People Express first years (Boston to Paris)... I flew so many 747s that I would dare to say. I LOVE that airplane. I flew on A 330 (very nice plane). I flew on DC10, L-1011 etc...I flew the 757 many times on transatlantic and domestic routes. I had once a very bad experience with that airplane. It was in 2009 (O'Hare to CDG). It took us three planes to cross the Atlantic (AA). All of them had a problem. First one was "defective". They took another one out of the hangar. Flight left 7 hours late (we all had to walk to the other side of O'Hare to embark). There was no entertainment and they only had the time to load food. No one cared. People wanted to sleep. Just before crossing the Atlantic over Boston (2:30 am), the pilot announced that we had to go back to Chicago due to a problem on one of the engines. Spent the night at the airport. Got a new airplane (757) the same afternoon. A few hours before landing, one of the stewardesses who was in the preceding flight told me on the side that this particular airplane also had problems. She talked about full-system reboot above the Atlantic. No idea what it was! System reboot?.. Anyway. Since then, I never felt comfortable flying a 757, especially on the cross continental route (BOS/NYC to West Coast). This to say, an airplane may be incredible for pilots, but the passenger experience is what makes an airplane likable or not, even if it all is based on anecdotal experiences. Going back to the A321 flying transatlantic, I understand the airlines rational for doing so. But maybe it is at the expense of passenger's comfort? Safety not being an issue, as the A 321 is obviously very safe flying long hauls... Maybe with new A 321s and reconfiguration of cabins. it might be nicer?
Some airlines have started boarding single aisle planes window seats first, then middle seats, then aisle seats. That seems to reduce the mess quite significantly.
I remember getting on a 757 from Newark to Frankfurt and the audible gasps from people at a single aisle aircraft for such a flight and NO entertainment system being installed. I ended up loaning my tablet to an extremely bored seatmate who assumed there would be something to watch on a 7 hour flight. I started checking hardware closely before making any reservation after this.
I don't know how convenient a small plane is for long distance and trans-Atlantic flights. For airlines, of course, it's a marvel. For passengers, it's an aberration. Personally, I would avoid any flight longer than 4 hours on a single-aisle plane. Comfort on long flights takes priority. Right now Boeing doesn't have much to do regarding the Airbus A321XLR, they are focused on solving their internal problems with their new CEO and on the certification of the 777x.
20% off promo code, MENTOURNOW, and a unique URL, joindeleteme.com/MENTOURNOW
Please do a video about the DHL 611 and BTC 2937 mid air collision 💥 in Germany 🇩🇪. Thank you
Who would win if you'll ask Incogni to delete your data from deleteme and deleteme to delete your data from incogni?
Never found a situation where an person I knew became more capable because he earned a master of business administration, the so-called MBA. A disaster for American industry.
FG@@steveperreira5850
Being a truly great manufacturing company requires a truly great company culture. That culture must be fostered over generations to maintain the generational knowledge that comes from the expensive lessons learned. By the time new and profit focused management realise how crucial the culture of it’s company is to success, they are already 20 years too late.
An accountant as a CEO?
There is a saying in the oil industry.
A growing company has a geologist as its CEO, a mature company has an engineer, a withering company has an accountant, and a failing company has a lawyer.
And where are the physicists? Yeah, unemployed.
It's true that a failing company has a lawyer...
The company that my dad's works in lead by a lawyer (after the founder passed away). And it's gradually falling, until it's bankrupt. Their ex-employee hasn't got their severance pay, including my dad...
@@mauladiraushanhidayat6648Has a lawyer? I guess so. Are you an infant?
Boeing gets DOD contracts with payoff to politicians, with guaranteed high prices for garbage, they hardly need lawyers or engineers
Boeing's biggest nightmare is its own management. They moved to Chicago to become a finance and marketing focused company, then to Washington DC in order to become a lobbying company. Each move made them worse at making planes.
Very interesting and worrying comment, indeed.
Could NOT AGREE MORE! Well said.
Poisoned by MBA people overruling engineers.
Their coming back to Seattle under the new CEO and I’m sure you’ll complain again anyways given what the media has taught you to do with 0 critical thinking
@@BusFan-nu1kd
I don't really follow the media, I don't know what they say. I only pay attention to factual information. Much of what I think is contrary to prevailing ideas. But you can't always be different. I've also studied business management, so I pay a bit of attention to what's going on in that respect, as things change through the years.
You, on the other hand, are repeating the current popular trope of the day without a single constructive idea. You'll probably change with the trends.
Boeing greatest fears
1. Losing stock price.
2. Planes falling apart.
3. Ex employee's.
4. Murder investigations.
5. Qualified QC workers.
6. Extra training for pilots.
7. Spending money.
8. Engineers.
9. Newly designed planes.
10. Quality products.
11. Time taken to sweep up drill bit shavings from cable trays.
12. Expensive locking bolts.
13. Paper trails.
14. Homesick astronauts.
Don't forget stranded astronauts
not enough stock buybacks.
I suggest you swap 1 and 2 above, so as to maximise management stock options!
Don't forget clouds
Unions
0:15 - Yes, A321XLR merely fill a niche - a _very_ large niche 😀
Not as large as you think, and not large enough for two players.
@widget787 Pretty large for second-tier and low cost European airlines.
It is a niche, the XLR will not be able to make it as well as a purpose built clean sheet design. Said in another way, the XLR will eventually be obsolete overnight..
It's a nice which Boeing once filled nicely but has abandoned for 20 years.
A very large niche as it seems. 550 orders 😂
given Starliner, I do not think Boeing has what it takes anymore. Too many MBAs and not enough engineers at the top.
It's not necessarily MBAs. It's Jack Welch sycophants. One of the best CEOs that Boeing had wasn't an engineer. He was a lawyer. What Boeing needs is a problem solver who has a long-term vision for the company and isn't concerned with short-term gains beyond what benefits the company in the long-term.
@@vawlkus Too big to fail company. 2nd largest defence contractor and the only thing they have going for them on the commercial front is that between them, Boeing and Airbus have 98% market share so no way Airbus can just ramp it up and pick up the slack. Boeing has to survive one way or the other.
@@VTdarkangel It's the short term profit perspective and that leads to no future. This is the end game of that play. A few people got very rich screwing Boeing out of their value.
@cageordie the short-term can't be ignored. It's when short-term value is prioritized over the long-term health of the company is when the problems arise. That's what Jack Welch did to GE, and that's what happened to Boeing. In an effort to cut costs for short-term gain in value, the long-term was sacrificed by souring relations with employees, which caused brain drain and quality control issues.
Imagine being stuck on the ISS wondering when you'll get to come home.
The A321neo XLR also has other improvements: 80% of the fuselage is strengthened by using thicker structural parts. It has an additional potable water tank, an optional additional waste tank, it has 3 zones for cabin climate controls instead of 2, added heated floors in the galleys for the crew, all new main landing gear and strengthened nose gear, both with completely new wheels. It also has a new belly fairing (as mentioned by Mentour Pilot), and new flaps.
That adds up to a lot of weight, which eats into efficiency. Not quite to the level of inefficiency of the 757, but could give a lot of airlines pause.
@@stephenj4937You have to also consider the lighter newer materials and new engines that are quite better.
@@stephenj4937 It can also add those spare tanks up front for specific long-range routes. 5000 nm (basic napkin math) in a single-row airplane would be impressive and I can see a lot of non-passenger uses for it.
@@stephenj4937 The A321XLR still burns 30% less fuel per trip than the 757, which is significant. And the extra potable water tank is sourced straight from the Airbus ACJneo Business jet lineup. I also forgot to mention the new E-Rudder, an electronic rudder system sourced from the A350.
I forgot to mention the new E-Rudder, an electronic rudder system sourced from the A350.
But didn't Boeing feel bolts were a "niche" product?
An optional extra.
🔥
Anything to save a penny.
😂
I'm done 😂
Wow, Calhoun decided for Boeing to withdraw completely from what seems to be the fastest growing segment of the airline industry 😮
More or less
This was the takeaway from this video, Calhoun short term thinking, not strategic long term thinking which is what he was employed to do
@igorGriffiths , that's the Jack Welsh way..and Calhoun was one of his deciples. Jack Welsh was a con man that single handedly ruined many great US companies.
@@igorGriffithsthat being said, I'm not sure how well a NMA program would be perceived on the back of the turbulent 787 introduction, and both 737 Max and 777X programs still in crisis mode.
Why should the public trust this new clean sheet aircraft Boeing is going to rush through the door while also putting out two other programs on fire?
Didn’t you listen?! It’s a “niche idea”.
I love how Boeing's immediate reaction to a pair of fatal crashes resulting in scrutiny of a particular aircraft type they're building (that also happens to be archaic) is to double down on that type and cancel any new projects aimed at replacing said aging type in production... absolute galaxy brain decision.
I thought this when the crashes happened. The 737 design goes back to the 60's. It should have been replaced with a modern composite jet chassis similar to the 787 in design to compete with the A320 going forward.
@@zoidberg444 They did it to save money because new planes and certification plus retraining pilots is *VERY* expensive, so Boeing started to cut corners. They kept the archaic 737 for too long. It must go!
Boeing is just too arrogant to admit that they're lost to Airbus. I mean, calling your competitor's product 'niche' while you're struggling with certifications, delayed orders, quality control, whistleblowers, starliners etc is just beyond me.
You can't fix stupid Boeing's DEI hiring.
@@seanromero2303but DEI hiring I'm sure you mean mediocre white men such as the CEOs who have run the company into the ground, right?
@@seanromero2303 It's more of a management problem when all engineers in management get replaced by sales people.
Bunch of old white dudes
@@seanromero2303
And you can fix people watching right wing news and buying into DEI is destroying the world like you have unless you’re a DEI post bot
Airbus did outsmart Boeing : by not screwing up quality for financial gains, by not leaving the midsize market, by not leaving the company in the hands of beancounters, by not falling into the "arrogant" mode prevalent at Boeing, and the list goes on...
I am from Hamburg and we are especially excited about the 321XLR because it's (mostly) built here but it also would allow our city to have a transatlantic connection again which we haven't had for decades.
The last transatlantic flight stopped just 5-6 years ago. But I am with you and sure that we will see new flights with the XLR.
I can see that happening more and more. With the big airports reaching capacity airlines will start offering flights from regional airports. Instead of you having to travel from Hamburg to Frankfurt and catch a plane to New York JFK you could catch a flight from Hamburg to Newark. Smaller airports, less traffic, closer to your home and where you actually want to go and so on.
As a Brit I'm still pissed that BAe sold its 20% stake in Airbus for a measly couple of billion Euro twenty years ago. Still, at least all Airbus wings are still built here.
JFK vs Newark is a bad example. Both are 45 minutes from Manhattan. Delta and American Airlines only fly international from JFK. United only flies international from Newark, nothing to do with small vs big airport. All three of them will have A321xlrs but until the 757s are retired, if the A321xlrs fly from New York it will be to LA or Miami, not to Hamburg or Nice or Mallorca.
@@heylookarealdinosaur Delta has not ordered any XLRs so far. American and United both plan to fly the XLR into secondary airports in Europe and North Africa as well as South America.
@@heylookarealdinosaur If there are enough passengers an airline would fly from anywhere to anywhere. The failure of the A380 is because airlines didn't follow the hub and spoke model of using the giant hubs like Heathrow, JFK, LAX, CDG etc but flew smaller, fuel efficient, planes direct from smaller regional airports to other smaller regional airports.
But you're right about Newark. I was thinking about LaGuardia.
Airbus didn't outsmart Boeing - instead Boeing did outdumb Airbus.
Yea
Maybe instead of paying Calhoun $32.8 million to run the company into the ground, if Boeing had just fired him and used that money to hire more competent workers and start designing a new model aircraft that could be modified from the 737 to the 767 range, that would have worked a lot better for the company.
$32.8M pays for a lot of engineer-hours. But no, they'd rather pander to the managerial-bureaucratic class
Is that a job application? They should hire you!
@@vintagelady1you must be part of Boeing management?
Nah boeing really need to stop using the 737 airframe it has way too many problems on it at the start and they should just make a new airframe.
@@camaradeKC But that's exactly what Calhoun told them they *couldn't* do, wasn't it?
Off-topic but that black New Zealand A321neo looks gorgeous.
I prefer it to the standard Air NZ livery. I also think their leased 777-300ER from Cathay Pacific with the all white livery looks better than the standard one too.
Agree completely. A great livery, and a great airline to fly.
You read my mind
Lookup Alsik Express planes
I gave up Air NZ on account of it having the snootiest, stuck up waitresses in the sky, even worse than Qantas was at the time, 30 years ago.
Airbus appear to have a plan for a range of planes with consistent pilot training optimisation and interchangeability. Boeing does not appear to such a plan. Southwest and Ryanair (excluding Lauda) are "stuck" with 737s or would have to heavily invest in pilot training. Clever long term strategy for Airbus. For car drivers, it's like finally in the 1920s a convention grew to have the accelerator on the right, the brake left off that and any clutch pedal left of that again. Can you imagine trying to rent a strange car if that convention had not grown up?
@@connclissmann6514 A The concept of larger higher capacity 737’s invented the concept. That was the point, add 3rd world pilots and whammo. You get what’s going on today. If Boeing goes offshore I cannot blame them based on how they have been treated. $2.1 billion settlement than a completely unrelated issue from a contractor occurs. No crash, no injuries. A charge from the DOJ and another $451 million added on. The families of the crash, they think the extra money is theirs. I hope not.
F1 cars do not always have the "traditional" pedal arrangement. But Boeing is in no way an F1 car, not even near one. The 737 max is more like Al Bundy's Dodge.
Pilot training is cumbersome but a minor cost compared to fuel and maintenance. They need very efficient smaller planes with a roughy 3000nm range as they don't do transatlantic flights and often their larger 737s are 3/4 full. In fact, more than half of all of Southwest's flights are not even 1500nm. Paying 150 million per jet that can do everything is like buying one of those Swiss Army knives with the 50-70 functions when all you need is a basic knife that can do 8 or 10 things. I have one of those giant ones ( about 40-50 functions ). I take my Leatherman with me instead when I am camping. It does what I need for less cost and less weight. One is a curiosity I bought when I was young and a bit foolish, with bigger eyes than my capacity (lol) that sits in a drawer, and the other I keep in my car and use constantly.
@@todortodorov6056 I liken the Boeing family to the Ford Mustang. All variants of a fantastic game-changing design. That is 50+ years old at its core. Boeing's real issue is that they kept trying to refine and adjust the same formula rather than actual out of the box radical re-designs. And they are end of life. In a way, I see why their CEO said no new planes. It's not possible to compete any more with ancient fundamentals. Yes, I own a Mustang myself and love it. But it's simply not a modern driving experience.
You rent a car with a different configuration every time you go to the UK, Japan, Australia.. etc (unless you live in one of those backwards countries in which case the opposite is true).
At least Airbus marketing can use the slogan: No whistleblowers were harmed in the design or production of this plane.
This is exactly why you’ll keep contributing nothing to society! *They never ever do safety comparisons because you cannot do such comparisons in this industry unless you want a major lawsuit*
@@BusFan-nu1kd I never claimed to "contribute anything to society". You made that up because it's what you would do. In Europe we don't just kill whistleblowers but in the USA you do. And about big lawsuits, that's another big US thing and it almost never goes against domestic big business.
😂😂😂
Two Mentour videos in two days. We're on fire 🔥
Enjoy!
@@MentourNowThis is out of topic but can you cover the Japan Airlines Flight 516 accident? How does this do to the Airbus A350 after this unfortunate accident?
An important detail is that all A320/321 aircraft have a fuselage which is 1ft/30cm wider internally compared to all 737s, that’s an extra 2 inches of width per passenger. Very necessary in single aisle travel!
I wonder if Boeing should instead be having nightmares about their design and maintenance processes.....
Should have. 25 years ago everyone feared this was going to happen when they absorbed McDonnell, but they soldiered on as the cracks kept growing. Now, it's a complete mess and won't likely ever regain its momentum.
Like most large US corperations it will compete in court saying Airbus is EU goverment supported demanding tariffs and anti monpoply action by the courts. It seems to be the trend in the USA at present, the quality of your legal team is more important than the quality of your product.
There's a lesson here that extends far beyond aviation.
Don't let bean-counters out of the Finance department.
Period.
Given how some of themm act. I wouldn't trust them even counting actual beans.
Hahaha! Agree. Once financiers are in full control innovation must be lagging behind.
At this point Boeing management has screwed the company so badly that there's a better chance for a third company to enter the market. Normally the barrier to entry is so high that there's no way a newcomer could compete but with this niche left unfilled and considering if you're only going to have one aircraft on offer at first having something in the middle would be the best I think it could actually happen.
Bombardier tried with the C300, but Boeing and American protectionism killed them off. Though it did allow Airbus to sneak in, get a plane for free and sell it in the US.
@@karlbassett8485 yeah, an American company might have more luck which in some ways would make me happy but with our lucky lately it would probably be another Silicon Valley attempt at aerospace that gets people killed. What we need is Burt Rutan to link up with someone competent who has VC money haha
At this point Boeing needs to merge with Lockheed Martin and form a new company. Their combined technology and engineering would make it a better competitor to Airbus.
@@khakiswag tbh we’ve had enough of that and it seems to make things worse
Embraer comes to mind, this would be their chance to try their hand at larger aircraft
22:15 - I am afraid not. As much as I am an Airbus fan, an effective monopoly is not good for anyone in the long run, including the monopoly holder.
A nearly 10 year waiting list is a problem and why Embraer and Comtac and others are now looking at the large demand and getting into the game in a serious manner. The main issue isn't the long-haul routes, but the tons of shorter, often less than 1500 nm routes and a massive fleet of aging planes worldwide. Money to be made for sure. :)
Boeing at this point could actually make money by selling a new version of the 727. Demand is that high.
Airbus are terrified that Boeing will go bust because think what the reaction of many governments will be to an Airbus monopoly. You can bet both the Chinese and US governments would both immediately pour many billions into creating a competitor. Hell, the EU would regulate them to death. It's far better to be the market leader in a duopoly. It is the same reasoning the Microsoft had in the early 1990s when Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy - they actually covertly gave Apple a large loan.
Airbus has already stated they don't want the monopoly and it's not a good thing to have.
@@martinluke9470 Not much you can do when your competitor is imploding and everyone else left the commercial sector. Same as we see now with Intel and AMD. Poor Intel can't hardly keep from tripping over its own feet. This (very likely) strike will probably push Boeing over the edge. I get it that the workers need more, but the company is NOT doing well - for real this time.
@@martinluke9470 Indeed.
what happens when companies value shareholders more than customers.
Indeed, when their main focus is placating activist shareholders.
One earns value for shareholders by valuing customers.
@@blatherskite9601 not always true, if the company has enough market dominance that there's no more expansion possible or customers have no choice that makes sense, it's a scummy practice, but I can see why.
Look at what happened to a major grocery chain that ran beautifully until it became in ester dependent and later was taken over by another grocery giant, but is run as two separate entities! They forgot that the employees are the foundation of a company and the administration is the roof, and is often too heavy for the structure until a lot of the deadwood is removed which is often too late!
And shouldn't be by artificially increasing invester gains by simply raising prices for the consumer and keeping wages low which is too often the case especially after a good company goes public! Such as the grocery chain I was referring to!
18:43 "Airbus had long delivery times" Boeing would have long delivery times too if they installed every single bolt in all the doors and performed QC on their products.
The 737 has a decade of production due to orders. Stick with what you know enemas and being a bottom boy.
"...unless something really surprising happens..." hahaha... indeed.
Yeah.. you never know 😂
@@marnig9185 Right, like when you prang a MD-80 and everyone slaps their heads and goes "screwjacks! Of course!" when the FAA report is released. But we won't be thinking of screwjacks as a cause initially because most control specs have been written in blood, you know. So it would be a (ahem) niche error that is widespread and/or a new unanticipated error like the Hawaii 737 that suffered aluminum fatigue which happened 40 years or so after air passenger pressurization started in the late 40s with the DC-7 and B377.
Boeing missed its perfect opportunity about 10 years ago. With the 787 selling well all they had to do was scale it down to a 757 sized single isle medium range aircraft, using all the same tech and design as the 787 and dual rated as per the 757/767 arrangement. That would have been a world beater.
Boeing tried that: The 787-3. No orders.
319 neo has preety much being made to allow nepal and other over-elevated countries to operate safely.
It exists for diplomatic reasons more than comercial ones.
That might be the case
In addition to your thought, it also better fits the ULCC business model. Spirit ended up converting their A319neo’s to A321neos which they are probably regretting right about now. It’s basically the same reason @mentournow explained in a prior video why Boeing even bothered with the Max 7.
The international airports in Nepal are actually not that elevated: Pokhara with 2,625 ft / 800 m, Tribhuvan (Kathmandu) with 4,390 ft / 1,338 m and Gautam Buddha Airport (Siddharthanagar) only at 344 ft / 105 m.
The Airports in Mexico City, Denver, Alcantarí (Sucre, Bolivia), El Alto (Bolivia) and Lhasa are much higher.
I just checked at planespotters: Tibet Airlines (6 planes in operation) and China Southern Airlines (4 planes in operation) are the biggest operators. Tibet Airlines has already a large fleet of Airbus 319-100 and 319-200 (33 in total). They operate only Airbus planes.
Since 2017 20 A 319neo´s were manufactured - yes: 20 in 7 years! - 12 of them were selled to Airlines from China, 4 to Businessjet Provider, 1 to a private Customer and 1 to an Airline from Uzbekistan, the remaining 2 are the two Prototypes which stayed at Airbus. The Launch Customer was K5 Aviation, a German Businessjet-Provider.
The Backlog of the A 319neo contains 50 Orders (yes: 50!): 17 from Airlines from China, 4 from Businessjet-Provider and 29 from at the moment unknown Customers, but they´re probably also Airlines from China, Businessjet Provider and maybe a few private Customers.
The Chinese Airlines are using them for mountainous Airports in China (Tibet Airline in fact got 7 of the 12 A 319neo, which were delivered to China), the Businessjet-Provider are using them for "best Customers", who´re able and willing to pay for "more" than a Gulfstream or a Bombardier Global.
i was at lhasa gonggar airport 10 years ago, and no single boeing plane was spotted in the ramp. they only use a319 and a332 there...
The A321 XLR will be perfect for long range point to point flights avoiding the need to go via big hub airports. I think this will be a huge market.
My only concern is how “comfortable” would it be for long hauls though
@@FrostlifeV Absolutely miserable.
If I have a comparable choice in price, I’m always going to pick a wide-body for long haul.
Single aisle, no wheelchair-accessible toilets. Far from perfect.
@@stephenj4937 that would be down to the cabin, which is the airline, not the aircraft
Corrupt incompetent executives and corporate management is any companies worst nightmare.
Glad to work as a development and certification engineer on the XLR in Toulouse! Hope it will keep its promises with its entry into service within the next few months :)
Maybe that by comparing B757 and A321nei XLR, Boeing forget that for XLR, the same type rating as for A321neo + a small 1/2 day training are needed..
Moreover, you can dispatch the XLR for a short haul or long haul flight with no constraints
So you work for Airbus? That's cool 😊
Seems like your company is in a good shape with your namesake at the helm haha 😅
Hopefully you enjoy working for them 😊
Boeing should be afraid of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that comes out to compete with them….
The only thing Boeing should fear right now is Boeing, they are their own worst enemy. Airbus, COMAC, the economy, etc. could never do as much damage to Boeing as Boeing inflicted on itself.
Boeing is too busy get It's sh!t in order to a afraid of anything right now. They're at least moving in the right direction. Ortberg is taking up residence in the Renton area, to be on top of things. That's a plus. Maybe they'll move the entire C suite back to Renton
Since they were monopoly Europe wants to be loy😅al to Brittain. Airbus and 321. Boeing made too many management mistakes. Things that will take too long to catch up. Like tortoise - & the hare story . I hope they get their game back. Bless them all..
Dude, Boeing is more afraid of your videos than of Airbus‘ backlog!
Airbus backlog is a good thing for Boeing. It means that customers who desire earlier delivery dates will choose them.
Remember that unfilled orders are like unrealized gains. Another pandemic and there could be huge cancellations.
@@calvinnickel9995 but Boeing build's junk planes
Excellent point about flexibility. Airlines with large fleets find it useful to have a backup plan for when planes are taken out of service at short notice due to a technical issues. It makes no commercial sense to fly an A321 XLR on short haul routes permanently but to do so just occasionally will not put a big dent in the finances. For Boeing to dismiss the XLR as a ‘niche product’ maybe to just reassure themselves. If Airbus go on to sell 2000 XLRs then this will have been a very big niche.
It won’t because there simply isn’t the market for it.
And the A321 XLR will suffer from the same problems the 757 did outside of its intended role. Too big and too heavy with too little capacity.
@@calvinnickel9995 no it won't, you just don't like Airbus so want to say something negative about it
Well, for some airlines the 321XLR is a game changer. Example: Icelandair. Icelandair is switching its fleet to Airbus and I'd have a hard time swallowing any explanation that ignores the 321XLR. The XLR is probably the single most important deciding factor. There are supporting factors but they mostly make the switch more of a slam dunk for Icelandair which has ordered a considerable number of Airbus aircraft and nearly all of them are XLRs. To get to SF or LA from Iceland you need a 767 or a A330, but they're too big for developing small markets. The 321XLR opens up the entire US west coast, Mexico City and plenty of other destinations.
Many, many airlines rely mostly on mid-range sized aircraft in the 737, 757, 320, 321 class and for all of them the 321XLR is an option and opportunity for growth and market development that completely and utterly outclasses anything offered by Boeing.
The 321XLR opens up the the entire US east coast and many Caribbean destinations to many of the westernmost cities in in Europe, non-stop without flying wide body. So, Icelandair's opportunity comes quite possibly with some new competition. The 321XLR may snip off some of Icelandair's advantage but they can make up some of that and attract new customers by also switching to 321XLR (and eventually A330 when the need arises). So thinking one turn ahead, Icelandair's switch is perhaps best considered as a forced hedging move even without their own extensive opportunities.
321XLR opens India to easyjet should they want it ... in short this really is a game changing plane. It massively extends the reach of mid-range operators. I don't know that easyjet stands a chance here, but heck they usually do.
Icelandair had a "Big Think" in the latter half of the 2010s and decided on the 737-Max. My feeling at the time: Big Think -> Big mistake. I feel somewhat vindicated.
In short the 321XLR changes the mid-range landscape and operators that make the wrong aircrarft choices here are possibly going out of business.
And Icelandair is competing in transatlantic market for smaller European airports with no direct flight there - e.g. for me to fly to the US I need to go to Franfurt / Heathrow / Helsinki etc first, so why not have a 4-hour flight to Iceland and then 5 or 6 hours to the US, instead of 2.5 hours to Germany and then 8 or 9 to the US? If the price is the same..
@@ivankuzin8388Icelandair was flying from Edmonton in Western Canada to Keflavik, and then to Paris with a minimal amount of layover time. That was far more practical and shorter than flying to Toronto or Montréal and then Paris.
But they stopped serving Edmonton 5 or 6 years ago.
However, this year I discovered that KLM is doing a non-stop flight between Edmonton and Amsterdam.
The 321 XLR won't do western Europe to west coast U.S. It might be able to just make it eastbound but aviation is rightfully conservative and generous margins are allowed for.
@@danfuller4189 From Iceland it will, Iceland in quite much closer to US than the rest of Europe :)
Big up the Iceland massive.
I have to take exception to your suggestion that the B757 only became a long haul aircraft after it finished production! I joined Monarch Airlines, in the U.K. ( now sadly deceased 😢) on the first of January 1990 and by then Monarch was well established on the North Atlantic with the 757. My ETOPS check in July 1990 was to Acapulco ( via Bangor, Maine ), Mexico, while my first long haul flight as a captain on the 757 was to Bangkok ( via Bahrain)! Oh happy days.
I worked for one US airline in the UK and then three in FL including Eastern. Unfortunately, all four went bankrupt, but I stayed in the US. I miss the 70’s and 80’s when the industry was so much more exciting and of course free travel. I don’t remember Monarch, but I do remember British Caledonian, Laker and Peoples Express.
So a tour operator.. not really an airline.
Should troop movements and Hajj charters be called airlines, too?
Bangor Maine!
My first ever flight to the US.
Felt like a remote military base there.
Thanks Sandra! Sorry, I'd forgotten about Monarch.
I'm not very into aircrafts, but to me it seems that airbus and Embraer have the planes of the future, while Boeing is putting resources into doors not falling off and getting back astronauts from space.
Exactly. Stale and sadly uninventive. So incredibly unamerican.
Boeing is all about hiring MBA grads to optimize shareholder value. Everything else is a sideshow, including aircraft.
Boeing: "We're too big to fail."
Boeing: "Everyone will ALWAYS want the 737."
Airbus: "Hey, customers, what do you need?"
The 737 was the world best-seller for a reason.
Boeing made an almighty dumpster fire of updating it though.
@offshoretomorrow3346 Yes, it was. At a time when there was nothing else like it. But the world is moving on, and someone made something better, decades ago, and Boeing was so ignorant to respond.
@@offshoretomorrow3346 WAS is the word but the A320 is a better Plane. yes i have been on a South west 737/ 700 Boeing should have stop at the 737/900.
@@docgmark YEA
Thanks for the cogent and objective commentary. It's refreshing to get a straight-up discussion based in fact and solid reasoning; rather than sensationalized hyperbole, or hate bashing for the sake of bashing by a bunch of prigs. On a separate note, Ortberg says he's moving to Renton and taking up office in the old HQ building. Good for him. That's promising.
As a retired airline pilot/executive I always enjoy your even handed treatment of the current issues. The video on the 757/A321 NEO was exceptionally well done. However, I would like to give you a little more background on the 737 evolution. As early as 2005 Boeing was conducting studies on a replacement for the 737. As part of their work, they utilized teams of airline executives to develop the baseline airplane. In those days, this was the 737 RS project and I was one of the industry participants. The project sort of went 'back burner' after the 2008 recession, but was resurrected a few years later as the NMA. While this was all transpiring, the 'takeover' of the old Boeing engineers by the McDonnell Douglas financial engineers was completed and work all but stopped on the NMA. Basically, the new management was not in a mood to 'bet the company' which is how we got the Boeing 707 and 747. Curiously, as I slipped off into retirement the NMA was positioned to be about 220/230 seats in a two class configuration with a 5,000 mi. range. Moreover, there was a lot of sentiment to make it a twin aisle with 2-3-2 seating. With cooperation from the engine manufacturers the airplane could have been available right about now or next year.
I wonder what THAT would have done for the 321???
the only thing that was bet on by boeing was the 747, The US Air Force paid for the KC 135 , it was not much work to change the kc 135 in to the 707
Fun fact, looking at your T-shirt!
The very first time I ever flew it was on a Comet IV (with the rounded windows). I am quite proud of that (flying on the first commercial jet liner, even if it was the MKIV version). The Original version was withdrawn from service and replaced by the Comet II and then IV (1958) before I was born . The Comet III was a prototype that never saw production, but lead to the fully redesigned MK IV.
From a passenger perspective I recently flew from between Boise and Buffalo via ATL. The ATL-BOI legs were a 737 (I forget which one this was Delta) the ATL BUF leg was an A320. It was a much nicer experience and noticeably longer.
While I am happy to see the success of Airbus (I'm french), I am sad at the same time for Boeing.
Competition is a good thing and I wished Boeing would never have dropped the NMA project, Boeing 797 would have been a great opponent to the Airbus a321.
The Boeing 737 is a good plane but it is an old plane which has been stretched way too much, it should be replaced but I am worried that we are already past its replacement date... and announcing a possible replacement now would just end up in even lower sales.
Airbus have been smart in the way they have designed their planes. They didn't copy Boeing's low design for example, meaning larger engines, longer fuselages etc were all possible. Hence the NEO didn't need an MCAS, and the A321 was possible.
I often fly from New Zealand to Australia, and Air NZ do exactly as you mentioned, but even down to the times of the day. Sometimes it's in a 787-9, sometimes a 777-300 and other times in an A321NEO. I might also add that the A321NEO is nice and quiet to fly on too.
The 737's low design was specifically to accommodate manual cargo loading and passenger stairs. Airbus designed the 320 much later so could assume bulk cargo loading and airstairs - which by that time they most airports had.
Don't quite agree about the "quiet" bit for the A321neo. I've taken four flights on them this year with SATA (Azores), and they were all noisy. Different engine technology, obviously, but the loud noise startled me. It reminded me of the roar the B707 made taking off fully loaded. Vastly better climb rate, of course. Maybe AirNZ's Pratt & Whitney engines are quieter than the CFM Leap-1 engines SATA uses, or perhaps AirNZ uses a higher grade of oil ;-) The B787 is the quietest plane I've flown in recently - GE engines, I believe.
@@Peasmould nah, you're making that up, I've never been on a noisy neo including a VietJet flight from Bangkok to Chiang Mai in January
@@Peasmouldneo is less noisy than max. Even with the same leap engines. I believe Airbus uses more sound insulation in the fuselage than Boeing does. Across all types.
787 is decent but the quietest cabin by far is the A380.
So A321XLR has European regulator approval, and possibly FAA approval soon. Thanks for pointing out the design modifications for the special tank - so interesting. I should also note that A320 series cabin is slightly wider than 737 or 757.
A320 is much quieter than 737 as well. Better for passengers over all
Boeing could have probably kept iterating the 737 except that its low ground stance limited how much it could be stretched while reasonably avoiding tail strikes, or it would need a major redesign for significantly taller landing gear, longer wings, etc. which at that point you may as do the clean sheet. Its clear what is needed is a clean sheet design where they do the studies for a 280 seat jet at full stretch, then work that design down to 180-200 seats for the initial model, releasing the variants in succession based on market demand. This could be one or possibly two families where one maybe has a performance focus and the other efficiency, but it seems both should be possible with engine options in one core design.
Variant 1 - Max PAX+Cargo Capacity, Low Range, less Performance, Max Efficiency
Variant 2 - High PAX+Cargo Capacity, Med Range, More Performance, Med Efficiency
Variant 3 - Med PAX+Cargo Capacity, High Range, less Performance, High Efficiency
Variant 4 - Low PAX+Cargo Capacity, Max Range, less Performance, Max Efficiency
etc. where its mostly just changes to engines, belly fuel capacity, and stretch lengths ordered.
SMH right off. What Boeing management has done to that company is just plain criminal. It's impossible to believe they blew it in such a monumental way.
Yeah, impossible until you recall how many other great Murican companies also destroyed themselves.
It's _Not_ "Boeing Management"!!! Boeing Management left the building in 1997. It's _McDonnell Douglas_ Management + Wall Street. Look, I get it; we like to romanticize Boeing as the great American _Commercial/Passenger_ aircraft manufacturing company of 50 years ago. When the merger consumated, Boeing ... I mean _McDonnell Douglas_ reverse-acquired Boeing to support its DoD ambitions. Airbus has $65Billion in annual revenue, from selling mostly passenger aircraft. Boeing has about *$300 BILLION* in DoD contracts, and $80 Billion in annual revenue - mostly from Hypersonic Missiles systems, to those "2,000 Lbs. munitions dropped on children", to petal mines.
This is NOT your Father's Boeing. This is pure Evil.
@@Boababa-fn3mrCan’t get too far in the comments without finding some fresh American hate.
@@Danimalpm1 Where's the hate?
@@Boababa-fn3mr "Murican" = "wanting to project a sense to dislike towards that country and its inhabitants." [urban dictionary]
the 321neo is a wonderful aircraft - have flown it recently on two carriers - DL BOS-SFO and UA ORD-SFO - F on DL and Y on UA - both great - these are the best single aisle aircraft in the skies now
“A niche aircraft”? It’s taking the 757 customers.
It reminds me of those videos of Steve Ballmer at Microsoft laughing at the introduction of Apple's iPhone.
It is a niche but a niche that needs to be filled. That's why you have a range of products.
If you don't fill that niche, your competitors will.
Once your competitors have a way in, they can start chipping away at your other product line sales. Before you know it your competitors are out selling you 5 to 1 and you are just left wondering what happened.
My poor work horse 😢
@dsmx85
Except not.
The A340 and A380 fill niche markets. Remember that Boeing has never clean-sheeted another airliner with more than two engines since the 747.
The A340 and A380 were huge money losers for Airbus. Boeing did some small modifications to make the 747-8 and split the already tiny jumbo market to ensure that Airbus would lose even more money.
People don’t want to go long distances on narrow body aircraft. The only places it works is long thin routes where there simply isn’t enough demand to make a wide body profitable. And lots of airlines would rather reduce frequency to fill larger planes (since there likely isn’t competition on those routes) rather than alienate customers with horrible aircraft.
@@calvinnickel9995 I'd like to add from the maintenance perspective, the 757 is far less troublesome than the A330s (barring that one incident with the goose, but Canadian geese are the devil). The 757 goes AOG far less often and gets thru its maintenance checks quicker than any other aircraft in our fleet.
Every time we hear that parts for the A330s need shipped, everyone goes "fucking Airbus".
Boeings greatest fear is losing money
And this is a part of that
Boeings greatest fear should be itself at this point.
Whilst they should be fearful of losing safety record..... Everything else is secondary. I have already started to go out of my way or spend significantly more just to avoid a Boeing flight..
Losing doors ! & wheels 🛞
Losing wheels is fine, I trust my pilots training... But losing the door causing rapid depressurization, or adding nose dive MCAS without telling pilots; That's what I fear. If my pilot doesn't know shit Boeing has done, how will he keep me safe!?
long range isnt something to worry about as later on passengers wont choose that reduced space over spacious seats available in wide body.
Boeing are finished building new aircraft. Updating the 787 for the next 20 years is the best they can do. The 1950s 737 and the 1960s 777 are at the endpoint in any further development.
AIRBUS. Have a fleet of aircraft that will be easily upgraded to keep ahead of whatever Boeing decides to do. Airbus are the future. Boeing are the past.
Boeing is still outselling Airbus in the wide-body market.
@@Danimalpm1 keep clutching at those straws. Boeing outselling Airbus in a much smaller volume market, however, the A350 is by far the best wide body in the air at the moment along with the A380. 777's are old and tired now and who knows when the 777x will eventually start in service
@@Danimalpm1 not for long
One thing to note about XLR Vs normal NEO with ACTs, is the MTOM and MLM. Installing the ACTs means, that the operator has to trade- more fuel means less traffic load onboard with the same masses limiting the takeoff and possible overweight landing.
With increased masses on XLR the operator doesn't have to make that trade, enabling transport of the same amount of traffic load, but on longer distances
It shouldn't be a plane giving them nightmares - it should be their executive management team responsible for money over quality.
yea
Boeing made short-term decisions, where Airbus acted long term.
I finally had a reason to purchase tickets for the first time since 2020 today. The cheapest options were all on Boeing aircraft. I just couldn’t do it. I happily paid 20% more to fly on Airbus. Maybe I’m being a bit too over-the-top but the thought of flying Boeing keeps me up at night.
for me it depends on the age of the Boeing 'plane - older ones fine; last 20 years, look for alternatives
Jag måste in och lämna lite extra kärlek för den fantastiska mix av nytta, kunskap och dramaturgi du skapar med dina videor. Jag är chef för ett boutique MCN i Sverige (Ninetone Group AB) och varandes ett stort fan, erbjuder jag att hjälpa dig med vad som helst i RUclipss tekniska universum, kanalutveckling och Googlerelationer med crew/villkor-ratios jag tror ingen annan kan ge dig. Du har, globalt sett, en av världens bästa producerade kanaler. Gratulerar till framgången och all respekt för det ni levererar och ditt goda humör, känsla för kvalitet och härliga leverans i kamera. Med vänlig hälsning, /Stefan Hallgren.
Do you remember when UK left the Airbus project in 1969 ? New York Times 11 April 1969 « Britain Abandons the European Airbus Project; *Believes Building the Plane Is a Losing Proposition* »😂 Fortunately France asked Germany if they wanted to continue the A300 project, and signed an agreement 50-50 at 1969 Paris Air Show. Hawker Siddeley would stay in as a sub-contractor, but without a further £35 million German loan HS wouldn't have been able to buy the machinery.
Boeing returning to its engineering glory days. Wow, I see no signs of that happening, too short-sighted. Once you drop the ball like Boeing did in you're story, recovery requires a miracle.
... or at least a restored culture and a long time. Due to the lack of competitive capacity, Boeing could probably still do it if its Board had the vision.
There needs to be an in-depth documentary/study about Boeing’s leadership, management style, and decision making process since their inception. They’re so off track it’s honestly bewildering for this size of company.
Like a "sabotage" unit sent from Airbus to wreak havoc
They have been coasting since there last merger....
There have been several already. Look them up.
@@thilomanten8701 wrong Boeing did it to them self's Jal 123 Us air 427 united 585 say it all
there was a very god man at Boeing name Alan Maloney, Boeing was very mean and Nasty to Him, Alan went to Ford to become the CEO of Ford
I loved the 757 and 767 aircraft. I live near Denver, and it's definitely a hot and high airport in the summer, and offers direct flights to Europe. I remember my first dual aisle plane was a 767 we took to Orlando back in the 80's. A few years ago I took an Iceland Air 757-200 from Gatwick to Denver (though Iceland). My father in law used to load cargo for DHL, and his favorite was the 757. Their landing gear is so tall, they look like flamingos. I was sad to hear when they were discontinued.
As you mentionned cabin layout of this versatile a321 neo/xlr is an issue for passenger experience. flown last week in asia a 6hours a321neo with short haul cabin design: hard seats not reclining, no personal entertainement system, not enough toilets, lots of crew for service, but an overall bad experience. On return flight got in addition a diversion with 2hours extra flight+1 hour wait time in the diversion airport due to weather.
Total 9hours+ in this indigent cabin😅
@Sillysillylittleman ... you are neither silly nor little...your insight is SPOT ON. All I can remember is that former CEO standing at that podium and in front of the WORLD, *blamed those pilots* for those 737MAX8 crashes. Shame on him!
YEA
Its funny how when Boeing misses a bet is either lets rush plane development and cause two crashes or "niche market"...
In the same breath they claim 737 Max 10 order books as a success (about 450), and niche market the a321xlr (more than 550)...
We know how this is going to end...we have seen a similar moving when the a320neo came out...
I've flown the A320 neo on various budget airlines and was impressed with the design and especially legroom. It's a win for passengers.
Seat pitch depends on the airline. I have flown on an A320neo where my knees simply got caught between the chair and the seat in front of me.
Legroom and seating layout is entirely the choice of the airline. Not decided by Boeing or Airbus.
Very good video.
I've been saying this for years. The 757 still outclasses the 321 NEO.
Can you imagine a 757 NEO?
Yes but the 757 is not in production any more & those still flying are over 20yrs old.
Thank you for taking. an extremely complicated topic and breaking it down. And those previous videos about the 757 et al (which I had seen prior) made a lot of this new info make sense. You’re the best!
Wow, thank you!
Another advantage of the A321 XLR, which might be useful in the future, they can be used for evac flights, when large A330 MRTT or similar aircraft are not required.
(E.g. Just a small group of people to exfil or forward bases can be used.)
Good video and interesting. I had a couple of thoughts while watching. The first is the mention of the Boeing CEO. One has to wonder if he was an Airbus "plant" with all the bad decisions he made that harmed Boeing in so many ways. The second concerns a chance for Boeing to get back in the game. Although the Boeing 767 as an airliner was discontinued, the manufacture of the airframe continues as the USAF KC-46. This means that the basic airframe assembly process has not been discontinued, just at a lower volume. Why couldn't Boeing just follow the Airbus example and create a 767 NEO.. The development cycle would be reduced in both design time and cost. The -200 and -300 already have been made in LR versions and by adding newer, more fuel efficient engines and improvements from "lessons learned", have a good competitor for the A321 NEO. It would have the probability of common type rating for existing 757/767 operators and a large increase in cargo capacity, while using the existing 767 ULDs, over the A321. Training for the pilots and mechanics would be cost effective like your airline transitioning from 737 NG to the 737 MAX. It could be a win/win for both Boeing and the airlines. Just a wild thought from someone that is neither an aeronautical engineer or an airline executive.
They've considered a re-engined 767 already. As you write, they make the KC-46 and actually they still make the 767-300F freighter, too. But new engines that would fit under the wing would be difficult to find -- they would need to convince GE to develop a modified version of the GEnX of the 787/747-8, to make it work. Even if they could do it, the plane would probably be too heavy and/or not efficient enough, unless they also make a new wing for it... which is what they did with the 777X, which isn't going well (or fast). Probably a topic for another video
@@MentourNow Thanks for the reply. I must have missed that they had considered it. I was thinking more in the line of the RR Trent engines of the A330 NEO. Your knowledge level is MUCH better than mine.
@@JohnMckeown-dl2cl ... also seems like a fundamental capacity mis-match - 767 is a wide-body, A321neo is a narrow-body
Single aisle air craft are not suitable for more than 4 hrs flight, especially in the cramped economy configuration. maximum 5 hrs. I don’t think trans Atlantic flights will be favoured in this A 321 XLR. If that was the idea, the aircraft is a misfit. One option is to make it a total luxury premium economy type - only 2 +2 configuration with ample elbow space. The capacity will be then about 140, but fares can be appropriately adjusted. Another opening for this aircraft will be like 3 hr flights that can return without refuelling at the first destination. Faster turn around.
This is so sad for Boeing, their workers, and American industry in general. I am really wondering how and why Calhoun made the industry’s worst strategic decision in decades. Your reasoning explaining the A321-family’s success is very clear and logical. Even without the hindsight we have now, Calhoun should’ve been capable of seeing the same wheels in motion. So, if he did, why did he decide against at least keeping Boeings development of a ‘797’ alive?
Because the numbers added up to it being no better economy, no better capacity, and not less expensive to make than the competition. Basically like comparing a Honda minivan to a Toyota one. Nearly identical specs for a "new" vehicle/plane. When you need a full re-design with the next generation in mind. Something radically different that breaks new ground, or people will simply keep buying the Airbus models they know and like.
@@plektosgaming the Airbus A32X airframe is nearing 40 years of age now. The NEO range has new engines, wings and avionics, but in the end it’s only the better choice because the 737 base design is even older.
With newer materials and most likely better aerodynamics, Boeing could easily have beaten today’s A32X NEO even with similar engines. The problem Boeing is facing now is airlines who used to fly Boeing, are switching ecosystem because they can no longer wait. It’s going to be much harder to win those customers back with a hypothetical mid 2030’s new Boeing MMA/737 replacement. Especially since Airbus will very likely be targeting their A32X replacement around the same timeframe.
Its hard to blame Calhoun because the real reason for that decision is simply that Boeing no longer has the financial reserves to risk a new clean sheet design - if the process went awry as the 787 did the company really would be bankrupted. That is because of a string of awful strategic decisions which predated him. Of course he dressed it all up as "it aint broke so we aint fixing it" but few people in the industry were fooled.
@@kenoliver8913 It will be bankrupted anyways if it doesn't innovate. I do blame him as he's part of that generation of "leaders" who thinks of business in terms of only loss and profit and his own golden parachute at the end. When he gets booted from this job, eventually, he will crawl like a roach to some other company. Most likely back to Blackstone. This current group of "leaders" will send the next year flinding blame everywhere but themselves.
Totally agree. Coby Explains also had a good bit on a similar topic, too.
Thanks, Mentour!
With the Starliner stuck at the ISS it looks like Boeing’s decision to invest billions was a bet on the wrong horse. They could’ve had a decent midsize model to compete with Airbus by now. Instead they’ve shown they can’t build new jet aircraft or space craft. It’s really sad, and the executive suite needs some serious change.
Board as well - this has gone on for too long.
All i am hearing so far in the video is reasons why Boeing should take a look at Max and Neo programs and redesign the 757 with new engines and bring it back to life.
It might be slightly overweight as it was overbuilt as you stated to fit the difficult airports, but having 5k planes in back log would sureley entice some boeing loving airlines to go for the engine upgraded 757.
Boeing needs this to be able to develop a not new airplane and have it flying faster (less trouble with certification) then when they choose to develop new planes in that capacity.
Yeah when they tried to upgrade an exiting plane didn’t go so well. No thank you.
As a A321/320 pilot, I'm happy to watch this video lol. More work for me.
When plane spotting on the east coast, I feel 321 and 787s will flow constantly while West coast will be 350s and 777x. Boeing has yielded the role of the 757 and 777 for retain the old 767 and 747 role. The 321 and 787 will probably be the 2 most common aircraft respective to their roles.
With the horrible business practices Boeing has been doing the last decade they didn’t just quit the mid sized market, it quit the aviation industry. And I only fly on carriers that DO NOT use Boeing equipment.
I keep praying Delta will never carry out the threat of the Max-10. That will be a major disappointment.
Well, then don't travel. Airlines should buy Airbus right now so that the little crystals can travel.
@@SweetCloud0598 nice, thanks for the compassion of a fear that is irrational but genuine. I get that statistically flying is the safest way to travel, but the fear of flying is irrational and if I can reasonably avoid doing it I will, but I will fly if there is no other reasonable way.
I hope you never develop a fear of anything, and if you do that you receive more understanding than you have shown a stranger online 🫶
I admire the astronauts that trust going into space with a Boeing product, albeit the helium scare could have been a lot worse, but nevertheless, for now they are stranded up there!
Half the aircraft in the sky on any given day are Boeing. Probably more than half, actually. I hear this claim a lot these days and I’m not sure I buy it because most people are sensitive to pricing and convenience above all else.
The 321N is such an awesome aircraft. We travel an extra hour to major airports to get one over a standard 73-8 from our regional with our favorite airline.
It looks like there is too litte competition in the aircraft manufacturing industry. One manufacturer doesn't bother to update its product because it has only one competitor. This competitor makes a slighly better product, but also doesn't need and doesn't want to improve their product because then the first manufacturer would possibly be forced to get off their arse. Also, they don't upscale their production too much so that the first competitor can still live comfortably off the orders of customers who can't wait for decades.
This is a perfect analysis of why the airline industry is so slow with innovation. Maybe the chinese will tik tok the aircraft industry
Sadly, most other competitors went out of business.
probably not good news for "we the pax". Demand exceding capacity, ticket prices heading for the stratosphere :'-(
Airbus had almost double the orders Boeing had in 2023 and that’s before everything that happened in 2024
"One manufacturer doesn't bother to update its product" I cant agree with your view that manufacturers can't be bothered. The costs involved in developing new aircraft are truly astronomical. The B777 X is years late and it will be another year at least before the first plane will be delivered (and paid for) Meanwhile Boeing has to absorb all the development costs upfront. Furthermore it will be years in to the future before the project will make a profit as the profit stream usually comes from volume sales and the sale of spare parts. New planes don't need much spare parts. While I have zero sympathy for Boeing executives and their wall street pals, I do understand the tightrope all aviation manufacturers are walking. Its not a business for the fainthearted,
In my line of engineering (vehicles) to bring a design back is not much different to starting from scratch, you might have 50-70% of the original design concepts but the actual designs would be redone in line with the state of the art cad, materials, joining practices, the interior designs would all be fresh, the electrics, hydraulics and hvac could be adapted from other vehicles but you have to start again all of the legislative requirements, testing, validation, the negotiation with suppliers, manufacturing, logistics, etc.
I am an American and a proud American. I visit Boeing Plaza in Oshkosh during AirVenture in Kosh every few years. I have loved Boeing and don't want them to fail. It's a matter of economic and even national security. There is so much greed in Boeing management though that I don't even care now. Way to represent Boeing, argh! Go Airbus!
For Boeing it really can be summed up with: you’re in a hole, please, please stop digging.
Great content as always!
Good point, and thank you!
@oscarwandel9612 You just lack the foresight of a true genius CEO. If you dig deep enough, surely you will come out of the other end eventually. (Make sure you negotiate your bonus and sell your shares before your inevitable success can become public, though.)
I flew on two Delta 757s earlier this summer. N673DL first flew in 1992 (32 years ago), and N685DA first flew in 1995 (29 years ago).
Boeing used to be run by engineers. They used to be on top and didn't have doors falling off their planes.
* CEO needs to take guidance from President Biden and step down while the company still has a chance.
* Take control of and be much more involved in the construction of your planes. Relying on 3rd party contractors is not working!
* Stop worrying about stock price and how much they own. Fix the problems, and these will come back on their own.
* Hire, promote forward-thinking engineers.
* Engineer and build some new planes.
Calhoun has not yet fallen off the table
Yeah, keeping former whistle-blowers alive might also improve Boeing's reputation.
Wait. Doesn't Boeing have a brand new CEO?
@@jamesengland7461 Yes, they do!
Lots and lots of 737, 747, 727, 707 crashes. Same with Airbus takes a very long time, airbus almost 50 years, to become a major manufacturer of large jet aircraft. Well I like Elon Musk and the stuff that he's doing, he's not in the business right now at least of creating a new airline, whose stocks don't pay dividends, nor are they building new passenger aircraft, because there are Half a dozen major league companies in the US the UK Germany, Canada, Brazil, and Russia, all having one or more long lived Major aircraft manufacturer.
Thank you for the video! Actually, based on the sales, The Boeing family gap is between 737-8 and 787-9. So the gap is even wider.
Loved Dom's cameo. I vote for more Dom to the avgeeks (and the rest of the world) 🎉!
Ha ha! Thank you!
@@dominicMcAfee Don't thank me, man. Thank(s) yourself for the graphic aviation wizardry you create for us to see.
@@Josie.A.F ach no, it really is a team effort bud. We have a fantastic and extremely talented team of wizards. Our own little Hogwarts, if you will! lol
I feel like the recurring lesson of this channel (maybe implicit and unintended) is that airliner concepts are often prematurely cancelled, that, given enough time, almost any configuration will find an emerging market. Of course, the difficulty is in the wait, and in the potential to update an old design for a new role. Perhaps not practical.
Boeing not caring about A321XLR instead of just making 757MAX will burry them
I thought a 757 with some updates would be their natural competitor to this 🤔
@@macflodthe base design of a 757 is too heavy and fuel inefficient for todays needs. It would require a new design.
757 MAX, 787 MIN
757 max would have been impossible. Tooling was destroyed way before and would require clean sheet airplane
Nobody seems to worry about those things with the A-380 3 story plane! Lufthansa in Frankfurt has a real need for those, or did the last time I heard about it!
Top class content. Petter is a natural. You feel like he is talking to you personally. 10/10
Good video as always. On a side note, I am wondering how long range narrow body aircraft will deal with crew rest facilities on board. Cheers, Peter
It’s pretty simple a321xlr has its own crew rest area
@@JabsbshsReally? Airbus has not announced that as of yet, and deliveries are scheduled for this year. Given it’s range, airlines will need to schedule up to 3 pilots, and to please regulators, the crew rest area will need to provide lie-flat seating with a privacy curtain. With this, they are legal for flights up to 12 hours, well beyond what the XLR is capable of. While a dedicated and separate rest cabin would provide better rest, I don’t bet on airlines to spend extra for that when all they need to do is set aside a first class seat and provide a curtain. This also gives them the flexibility to sell that seat to passengers on routes not requiring a third pilot.
@@RobertsonDCCD A lot of first class seating these days are effectively small cabins in their own right. Though asking airlines to give up such profitable seats is pushing it if they can find space somewhere else is asking a lot.
depends, we're talking kind of short long haul, so 3rd pilot not required
@@soilentgreen7 It could and will be used when only 2 pilots are required. It also has the range to stretch into 3 pilot territory, so it just depends on the airline and how they want to use it. A permanent crew rest compartment will eat up customer space, no way around it. The most sensible move will be to use first class seats when required for the resting pilot. Flight attendants, however, will not be treated to such accommodations.
Thanks a lot Petter!!! Holidays plus your video work is outstanding! Grazie
5000 entry orderbook for a single family is insanely large. I can't really digest it.
First choice after being a truck driver in the Army was City transit. It was a very bad area and when we had layoffs I said "Next!". Then I did cross country for a few months and settled at Viking Freight. Bought up two and half years later by I thinknit was Roadway, the FedEx. By then I moved to Alabama and settled in Nursi.g school. 30 years later I am retired and miss the hell outta it. Women are better drivers especially at that age.
Two pet peeves, Flip Flops and fuel lines.
Especially as a woman driver I would have never have been taken seriously wearing flip-flops. Hell I wouldn't wear tennis shoes either at the time. And fuel lines?? OMG when I was OTR my 2nd lead driver would have shot me if I had left the truck on the fuel line for one minute longer than absolephuckinlutly neccesary.
Keep on Trucking and Stay safe out there.
Boeing is working hard to cut corners to be able to compete with Airbus.
Legit thought that a318 at 5:31 was a meme😂
Fr
nope, BA flew them from London to New York via Ireland, 32 business seats
From what I understand, the development of A380 also contributed much to the other newer models of Airbus? At least the wing design?
I don't like large narrow-body planes. It's a mess to board or go out when it's full. I don't understand why not to build a smaller 787 instead.
Boeing's next midsize plane will probably have two aisles and a 2-3-2 economy layout, like a 767. At least that was one of the last configurations before the NMA was postponed indefinitely.
@@MentourNow Exactly. I wanted to mention 767 but it has been out of production for years. So probably instead of developing a new NMA, it makes sense to just build a smaller version of 787. May be more cost-effective.
The problem is that physics says that the way to go is long and narrow. Because a short and wide fuselage has more drag than a thin and long one. Airbus also floated 2 aisle oval shaped, wide and short design concepts in the capacity range of the A320/737, but there is a reason it never materialized.
My wife and I just flew on a 321 this past June from Dulles to Dublin, Ireland and back (Aer LIngus). It was really not that great. The plane was an older version of the A 321 and the seating and entertainment reflected that. The crew complained that the galley was too small and that had very little space to work. I agree. The seats were not uncomfortable and the space between seats was not worse that was I found on some wide bodies. But t was a small plane for a transatlantic flight. We got anA 321 from Dublin to Rome and that was a much nicer flight. I am Franco-American, and have flown the transatlantic route a zillion times for the past 42 years. I flew on DC8 and 707 during the People Express first years (Boston to Paris)... I flew so many 747s that I would dare to say. I LOVE that airplane. I flew on A 330 (very nice plane). I flew on DC10, L-1011 etc...I flew the 757 many times on transatlantic and domestic routes. I had once a very bad experience with that airplane. It was in 2009 (O'Hare to CDG). It took us three planes to cross the Atlantic (AA). All of them had a problem. First one was "defective". They took another one out of the hangar. Flight left 7 hours late (we all had to walk to the other side of O'Hare to embark). There was no entertainment and they only had the time to load food. No one cared. People wanted to sleep. Just before crossing the Atlantic over Boston (2:30 am), the pilot announced that we had to go back to Chicago due to a problem on one of the engines. Spent the night at the airport. Got a new airplane (757) the same afternoon. A few hours before landing, one of the stewardesses who was in the preceding flight told me on the side that this particular airplane also had problems. She talked about full-system reboot above the Atlantic. No idea what it was! System reboot?.. Anyway. Since then, I never felt comfortable flying a 757, especially on the cross continental route (BOS/NYC to West Coast). This to say, an airplane may be incredible for pilots, but the passenger experience is what makes an airplane likable or not, even if it all is based on anecdotal experiences. Going back to the A321 flying transatlantic, I understand the airlines rational for doing so. But maybe it is at the expense of passenger's comfort? Safety not being an issue, as the A 321 is obviously very safe flying long hauls... Maybe with new A 321s and reconfiguration of cabins. it might be nicer?
Some airlines have started boarding single aisle planes window seats first, then middle seats, then aisle seats. That seems to reduce the mess quite significantly.
I remember getting on a 757 from Newark to Frankfurt and the audible gasps from people at a single aisle aircraft for such a flight and NO entertainment system being installed. I ended up loaning my tablet to an extremely bored seatmate who assumed there would be something to watch on a 7 hour flight. I started checking hardware closely before making any reservation after this.
I don't know how convenient a small plane is for long distance and trans-Atlantic flights. For airlines, of course, it's a marvel. For passengers, it's an aberration.
Personally, I would avoid any flight longer than 4 hours on a single-aisle plane. Comfort on long flights takes priority.
Right now Boeing doesn't have much to do regarding the Airbus A321XLR, they are focused on solving their internal problems with their new CEO and on the certification of the 777x.
MAS 737 economy is much more comfortable than AirAsia A330 economy and Emirates 777 economy.
they have different cabin layouts for long haul, same pitch and legroom as widebodies