Why Boeing Desperately Needs The NMA/797
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2021
- The first 1000 people to use this link will get a free trial of Skillshare Premium Membership: skl.sh/longhaulbysimpleflying...
We’ve heard plenty of discussion about Boeing’s next move in the mid-size widebody market. Plans for the NMA, or New Midsize Airplane - also dubbed the 797 - have been around for some time, but were put on ice with the arrival of a new CEO in 2020.
While there is a gap to be filled, Airbus is already ahead with the A321XLR. And with reduced demand likely to be an issue for some time, an offering in this market is important for Boeing. But...
What is the Boeing NMA? And will Boeing be able to bring the plane to market in time?
With thanks to our video sources: bit.ly/3ir2p6P
Simple Flying:
Visit our website where we publish 150-200 news stories per week: simpleflying.com/
Listen to our weekly podcast: simpleflying.com/podcast/
Download our iOS & Android app: simpleflying.com/simple-flyin...
Daily email digest sign up: simpleflying.com/daily-digest/
Check out our main RUclips channel: / @simpleflyingnews
Follow us on social media:
Instagram: / simpleflyingnews
Twitter: / simple_flying
Facebook: / simpleflyingnews
Linkedin: / 33222643
#aviation #flight #avgeek #airlines #flying
#Aviation #Flight #Avgeek #Flying
I would really like to see a newer 757, it’s such a shame they didn’t make a newer version of it
And the A-321 is eating Boeing's lunch.
It would be perfect. Boeing closed the 757 production line before it was given etops, otherwise they would have likely received more orders, and continued the program. A 757-500 and -600 would have the same capacity as the -200 and -300, maybe a few extra seats, but not more than maybe 2 extra rows, and would be re-engined to make it far more fuel efficient and up to date.
Introducing the 757 MAX. :D lol
@@bd5av8r1 It won't happen
@@fjp3305 neither will the 797 for that matter. Boeing needs to fix its current problems.
I'd love to see the stick insect back in production.
Me too. My favorite airplane to work on. Love the ones with RB211’s.
Same, along with the 767.
Boeing doesn't build jets anymore. They build Wall Street portfolios and golden parachutes for executives.
If you talk to almost every Boeing worker they'll tell you it became a very different company when Boeing was taken over by McDonald Douglas. ( Not a misprint)
People who basically ran MD commercial aviation right into the ground were now in charge of Boeing.
CEOs ( With no aviation background ) who cared more about stock prices and their bonuses and retirement pay than public safety. They stopped listening to engineers and the people who actually make the planes when there were problems or concerns.
@@RT-mm8rq That is sadly the case with so many companies. they're run for the short-term bonus and not the long-term legacy. Accountants and sales people should not be put in charge of engineering companies such as Boeing. They should be run by engineers for engineers.
@@RT-mm8rq you nailed it. Bean counters I call them. As it seems these weasels are mainly coming from the car industry acting like they know it all and not respecting professionals that have been working there all their lives. They are to be blamed, but someone holds a much higher responsibility in this. The screw ups that put them there in the first place and allowed them to carry on even after they have costed lives and drove the company’s name through the mud.
Updating the 757 or 737 Max - so two airframes from the 1960s/70s? So the lessons of the Max haven't been learned in terms of stretching an old airframe design past it's limitations....
the only problem here is the 737 max. The 757 is already stretched to the version 300. So There is no problem to update the 757 if they wanted. Also the deference between the 757 and A320 is only 5 years.
Why do u need to uodate the 737 max its already updated they should just modernize the 757
@@Gamer-lz6zz no he is talking about that was wrong to build the 737 max. But he put the 757 in example 😬
@@arielsegal7515 Ariel - The 757 design comes from the 1970s as a replacement for the 727 once its limitations for upgrading became apparent and customers didn't want it. The 757 - although it flew in 1982 it was designed and launched in the 70s whereas the A320 was launched in 1984 and flew in 1987 hence why it had an all-glass cockpit and fly-by-wire at launch. My point is that the 757 is a over a generation behind the A321 (a stretched and upgraded version of the A320). In regard to reintroducing the 757: The A330 Neo was a really smart move by Airbus because they took a relatively recent airframe and technology (late 80s) and upgraded engines, wing-tips and other tweaks - they could roll it out cheaper than the 787-9 and cut into the latter's orders. To argue the same is possible for the 757 is fundamentally wrong in my opinion - the airframe is 40 years old for starters - so it would need a big overhaul design wise to make sure you can get the extra fuel tanks needed for long-haul routes, also a new engine is needed and that has yet to be developed by RR, GE, P&W, CFM etc. I think that you get my point about the 737 MAX being yet another upgrading of the 1960s 737 airframe - and the resulting problems that has caused.
@@oldchinahand1305 737 max's problem was mostly due to the short landing gear inherited from the original 1960s design with smaller turbojet engines and low ground clearance for airstairs at small airports. boeing didn't want to change the landing gear length because that would've required recertification and loss of commonality with 737 NG, which would have been significant disincentive to airlines. 757 is like a320 in that their ground clearance is much higher than 737. much higher bypass turbofan engines can be fitted to a320 and 757 due tall landing gear.
The 797 could be too late. United and Delta were predicted to be the two large customers of the 797 with each getting an estimated 100-200 planes. United has gotten the A321XLR as a 757 replacement and Delta has gotten the A321NEO and A330NEO as 757 and 767 replacements. At this point getting the 797 would require airlines to change their route network and strategy.
United’s A321XLR order I’d imagine is the biggest blow to Boeing not getting the NMA out in time. United had to buy that to replace its 757s, even though it long haul fleet is entirely Boeing and all its Airbuses are at least 15 years old….
@@magnustan841 the big issue with that for Boeing is that it killed off the potential for a 737MAX-10XLR. United is currently the 737MAX-10 launch customer and they have the largest order with 100 on the way. For them to order a plane which is a direct competitor to the 737MAX-10 is a shot across the neck. The order shows that United would rather fly airbus narrow body planes for at least 25 more years instead of getting the 797. United was initially estimated to get 100-150 797s as about 2 years ago they flew 53 757-200, 21 757-300, 38 767-300ER, and 16 767-400ER. That was a total of 108 but a few more orders would probably be added for expansion. Today a United 797 order would probably be about half of that at 50-75 planes as United would probably only need the 797 to replace the 757-300 and 767-300ER as the A321XLR will replace the 757-200 and the 797 probably won’t be large enough to replace the 767-400ER.
@@G-546 depending on the how you see it, until the first aircraft is delivered its not over yet. Having an order doesn't mean the airline will take it. A350 orders on AA and UA is a good example. In AA case, Boeing managed to persuade AA to drop the A350 for the B787 by providing higher discounts to offset the crew certification cost. That being said, in AA case, the B787 was being favoured before the A350 order was dropped. However in UA case, the continuous deferral of the first A350 was largely due to boeing offering large discounts on the existing B777-300ER pushing out the needs of the A350 for UA. If the discount and benefits of aircraft offered are substantial enough, it will be able to persuade the airline to forfeit the deposit and switch their orders. Lets not forget what boeing did with the A340. They could very well repeat the same thing with the A321XLR, buy the brand new aircraft off from United and resell it to other smaller airlines.
@@chingweixion621 with the recent news about United being in talks for ordering 100 A321neo planes I doubt that they would switch to the 797. What is also important to factor in is that a wide body middle of the market plane and narrow body plane are very different. A narrow body has better runway performance, lower operating cost, but it can’t hold as much cargo. A wide body is more expensive, can hold cargo, and has worse runway performance. If Boeing makes the 797 a wide body I don’t think that United will get rid of the A321XLR order and if Boeing makes the 797 a narrow body I think that United would still get the A321XLR.
@@G-546 as I've said, orders are not done deal until it is delivered. United can place an order for 100 A321neo this year, and 2 yrs later before airbus starts building the first unit, they could very well switch it to 120 units of A220 without losing any of the deposits made. There is no telling. Airbus is vying for a larger share of united's fleet will be willing to compromise and be flexible as long the order stays with airbus. As for boeing, it depends on how low they are willing to go to keep airbus at bay. Based on what they've offered with the max, I'd say very low. Lets not forget all the discounts from the max groundings. Boeing would probably have to sell the NMA to united at a loss just to keep them happy.
The NMA is too late to the market. A321XLR in American, United, Qantas and possibly Delta killed Boeing’s chances. It would have to have the latest technology in alternative carbon neutral fuels and the best aerodynamic efficiency to be a success. Boeing’s dumpster fire of a corporate culture and deplorable quality engineering has to be fixed first.
Boeing is really a widebody plane builder. And there is not much demand for widebodies now, is there?
@@michaelrmurphy2734 - Smaller widebodies.. absolutely..
@@ACPilot Makes sense to me, IDK...
Not necessarily. If Boeing acts responsibly for the first time in years and picks a clean sheet design, it might be a case of 'you got there first be we got there better.' Turning the table perfectly on Airbus in the narrowbody market who did the same with the A320.
@@michealgo9646 Yeah, no. The way Boeing behaved up until now, and the fact that they still push short term profit margins over everything else means they have learned nothing. Point in case: The 787 plant shutdown in WA, to move production exclusively to SC for exactly that reason. The SC 787s have been riddled with problems, issues, errors, so much so that companies DEMANDED to not recieve planes from there. So no, they won't go with a clean sheet, I dare to bet on that. And as things are at this point in time I predict that the NMA will be a similar dumpster-fire as was the 737MAX - rushed out (because development time is expensive) from an old platform (because reusing what you have is cheaper in a lot of ways) with cut corners - again, to maximize quarterly revenue - and the plane being a banana - it ripens at the customer.
The 797 seems like an exciting plane. Hopefully Boeing redeems itself after the MAX crisis
Or the trade war can continue and China can bankrupt Boeing by banning any further purchases of Boeing aircraft in the world's largest aircraft market.
Though my question is why Boeing didn’t discontinue the 737 Max and just produce the NMA.
@@aycc-nbh7289 Search for _type certificate_ - Boeing was able to use "less crew retraining" as a selling point. I'm stretching it with this but a pilot of existing 737's could become a Max pilot with minimal retraining. A new _type_ means weeks of pilots being paid to go to _type_ school and not contributing to revenue.
Cowboy Bob But it could be detrimental to Boeing if they don’t have a replacement B757 aircraft soon, since Airbus may already be working on theirs. Boeing would lose out on an entire market share that Airbus could swoop in and take from them.
Though United has purchased a series of Airbus A321 jets, but has said that they don’t have the capability to replace their fleet of B757 jets entirely. The Airbus jets can only fly so far and can only accommodate so many people.
Boeing had to spend +4b Dollar for the devolopment of the 737max (A-320neo was around 1b Euro) and +20b Dollar for the grounding. For the 787 they spend +32b Dollar, the A-350 was around 10b Euro. Also the costs of the 777x are only rising with no end in sight. And yes the new Air Force One jets will be +500m more expensive and delayed again...
So I am not very confident that Boeing will put out a brand new 797 for 10b Dollar in this decade..
The 787 was farm out all over the world, the center fuselage is made in Italy, the wings in Japan, landing gear in France and Japan, rear stabilizers in Italy.. forward fuselage in Japan, engines U.K..... where did they loose so much money, the partners spent the money to make and build the parts in their respective countries.....
@@paveldeveraux2729 wasn't the idea behind "outsourcing" parts of the production to make the plane cheaper and production more efficient?
@@Sanginius23 No, it was for other people pay for the development of the plane, the US just builds the rear body and the others paid for the set up of production lines, Japanese Epoxy for the composites plus Mitsubichi build a 1 billion dollar factory just to build the wings... And probably all the other countries too... Ask the Italians!... They probably spent a couple of billion dollars making the factory for production of the center fuselage and had a lot of problems building it to spec. ( design errors of Boeing ) but, they still used the parts anyway...
787 is leaps and bounds more technologically advanced than the a350 so of course development is more expensive. The Max was also much more heavily revised than the 320neo hence the 737, a much older air frame, is more efficient than the a320neo. The Air Force One jet is a military project, they use systems from a wide range of companies. It will be a flying fortress of course it's expensive.
I vote for a 757 MAX over an update to the 737 MAX. I feel like too many people are sick of the 737 family, but the 757 is often under appreciated
Have been flying 737 classics and 757-200 .... problem is economics.
Flying the 757 is amazing. Performance and handeling is brilliant.
But... it burns roughly 1 ton of fuel more per hour in cruise in comparison to an old 737 classic.
And with the max you are almost carying the same amount of pax with a lot less fuel burn.
Another thing is what you pay in airway fees... its basicly linked to the weight of the aircraft.
Dont get me wrong.... i would love to see the 757 revamped. I just dont think its a viable solution.
@@torben6137 you don't think if they reengineered it with composite materials, and got new engines that were fuel efficient, that would solve those issues? The 737 max won't get many more than 200 seats; a 757 max could aim for closer to 250. All this could make it more economical for airlines on busy cross continental routes (similar to how previous versions are used), but with much better fuel savings.
@@spelldaddy5386 problem with more seats are those planes are harder to get full.
It seems like a sweet spot what the 320 and 737 carry.
A 757 only real advantage over the 737 was its performance .... have departed from airports in Turkey in the summer with a full load and the 757 had no problems.
It also had an advantage in range. But that advantage i beleive is gone with new 737max.
A composite version of the plane might be such an expensive exercise that it might make more sense to develope a brand new design.
In any case always loved flying the 757 but... unfortunately i think it has had its time.
Now im flying 767 wich also is a great aircraft... both are aircrafts from a time where boeing build aircrafts that was rugged and reliable.
The oldest aircraft have in our fleet is from 1983 and its still a reliable workhorse.
The 737 MAX Is Already Crashing So Why?
Boeing screwed the pooch. They could have developed the 797 in conjunction with the 787 and did a carbon composite NMA that shared similar features. They knew they were winding down the 757 when they were developing the 787 so there was no excuse to not develop a replacement concurrently. The 767X ain’t happening because it can’t come close to the 787. A 757X won’t happen because the tooling has been scrapped. This is an unbelievable lack of foresight by Boeing and it made a huge blunder on doubling down on the 737 MAX. The MAX-10 has bombed at being a potential 757 replacement and Airbus is cleaning up with the A321. This mistake may cost Boeing its very existence unless management is completely gutted and replaced.
Not a chance in hell Boeing will lose their existence. Not because of the strength of their business or anything silly like that. They’re simply too prestigious and connected, the US government would bail them out with however much money was necessary. The smart business move is filling the right pockets and kissing the right asses in Washington.
@@chadwells7562 Unlike Airbus, Boing has massive cashflow from defense contracts.
Great quality, thanks!
Boeing got themselves into a really sticky situation. They need to clean up their reputation, fix current aircraft, yet also introduce some brand new ones. Brand new ones which need to arrive ASAP but without cutting any corners as that would totally kill the company. Not a good spot to be in.
They rested on their withering laurels and did this to themselves.
But brand new aircraft cost a lot of money.
Sometimes admitting defeat is the way to go. Let Airbus have the long haul single aisle market. Clean sheet the 737 moving on from their current update the past thought process. Airbus are in the process of clean sheeting the A320, which is considerably younger than the 60s designed 737. If Boeing don’t do the same they will lose this market also and that will collapse Boeing. Boeing dominate the cargo sector, so focus on getting the 777X out the dam door, clean sheet the 737 and move forward. Just my view.
@@MaxRank I agree, Airbus pretty much has the PAX market in the bag right now, but they are doing horrible in cargo, which is where Boeing can thrive.
@@MaxRank I agree. Even the 777X’s future as a pax carrier is questionable. Boeing ought to focus on cargo for now and cancel all re-engine/MAX plans. Prepare for a multi-pronged retake starting maybe 15 years from now, when current Airbus aircraft start to age and need replacements. Obviously, Airbus isn’t going to stop innovating, so Boeing must definitely move their asses into clean-sheeting their entire lineup with a focus on the future.
It’s incredibly amazing how quickly the tables turned for Boeing. A decade ago, 77Ws (and the tail end 744s) reigned uncontested whilst the 787 programme looked to be promising. Meanwhile, Airbus was beleaguered with a failing A340 programme, miscalculated A380, and only the A330 and A320 as worthy competitors.
Now, the A350 has superseded the 777s in every single metric aside from cargo, even biting into the now less brilliant 787’s market share, the A320neos and their upcoming models have torn up Boeing’s ageing and technologically inferior narrowbody and MoM lineup, and the A220 programme has brought with it a successful Canadian wildcard, a narrowbody winner with absolutely zero competition from Boeing.
I think a 767X based on the 767-200 is the most viable option. KC-46s based on the -200 are still being built, so production capabilities are there already. Also, if launched in the next 2 years, the "767X" could come out when passenger numbers rebound close to 2019 numbers, so something with slightly more capacity than the A321XLR could be viable. (767-200 2-class seats around 210, A321XLR seats around 180-200 in a comfortable long-haul config, 787-8 2-class seats around 220-230) Plus, the widebody "767X" could offer more cabin possibilities compared to the narrowbody Airbus. I think more passengers would prefer it, so many seem sceptical about spending up to 10 hours on the XLR. The only problem I can see is that the longer wingspan of the 767 limits the number of airports it can service compared to the Airbus.
This is a really good idea
@@pyro_bites9558 What are your thoughts on this NMA and the 321XLR? Would you be okay travelling on it? I’ve never flown more than 4 hours on a narrowbody. It was okay, even though it was a LCC operating it. I’m quite short, so legroom isn’t much of an issue for me. Like I said, some people are very hesitant to the idea of flying on a narrowbody for so long.
@@magnustan841 Flying a narrow body isn’t really that much of a problem as most airlines install the same seats as they would on a widebody. I’ve flown transatlantic on a 757 several times and I must say I enjoyed it
@@magnustan841 We had to do it when the 707 was the dominant plane and we survived
@@mp4373 Well, modern king-haul air travellers are spoiled…. We are used to A380s, 777s, A350s, etc.
boeing should revamp the 767 because it's still in production
thank u for the like
They had their chance to Neo the 767 a decade ago but blew it. The wing and the airframe are old gen tech now. Needs a carbon wing and airframe then maybe.
It's definitely a time of growing pains for the industry.
No, because the revamp B767 would still be less efficient than B787-8. That's the main reason why Boeing didn't revamp B767. Because their study shows that it wouldn't be as efficient as B787.
Oh yeah, we know what happened last time Boeing took $hortcut$!?
I flew on the 757 with Iceland air. It was very good, and clearly better than the 737.
It's cheaper and more profitable to keep making 50 year old planes.
I really liked the version talked about a few years back that would be twin aisle but 2-2-2 seating. It would be very popular with passengers who hate getting stuck in the middle seat. Also there would be quicker turn around times with a twin aisle
wouldnt be very efficient cost wise because you’re losing seat space with the extra aisle
@@yiannimorfopos9627 yeah but if this plane is wider than a 757 but narrower than a 767 it would be hard to put in extra seats instead of that extra aisle - 4 and 3 seating? It would be more efficient in the air with boarding and unloading with a twin aisle, meaning less turn around time.
Just get the engine Center of G or polar moment of inertia or whatever correct on this one.
I think basically everything that is based on an existing aluminium body will not get past the pennycounters of the airlines as it will have too high operation costs - yes, the difference is that big as you can see on the A330NEO vs. A350.
As we know Airbus has also started the development of the A320 series successor and with the A220 taking the smaller end (and the ability to stretch further into an A220-500) i assume the A320 successor will more take the size of the A321. Combining the experiences of the carbon-A220 and the carbon-A350 and placing the A320 successor in the middle of these 2 Boeing has a problem as that's the NMA market that they are targeting.
So to compete Boeing will need a clean sheet design and span the area from the smaller B737 till the B787. Maybe an approach alike the B757 / B767 will be useful here.
The problem Boeing have with the NMA is that the lower capacity market, previously dominated by the 757, has the A321 XLR firmly in its sights - it's fully launched and will be available a good decade before a smaller NMA.
If Boeing choose to go go for a larger 'clean-sheet' NMA as a ' more natural 767 replacement' , Airbus, armed with A321 XLR technology, a new more efficient wing design applicable to the entire A320 NEO family (A320 NWO perhaps?) and an A321 stretch, (A322 perhaps?), Airbus will grab the Lion's share of that market before the 'glossy brochures' for the NMA launch are even printed.
Whatever Boeing decide to do, they face an uphill struggle. 30-40 years ago, Boeing management no doubt hoped Airbus would fail to crack their market dominance, particularly in the US, and simply go away. Airbus have not gone away! Now Biden has ended the tariff spat with the EU and Airbus have an assembly plant in Mobile, if anything, they're coming on stronger.
Boeing should make a 737 replacement instead of NMA.
IMO the best bet would be the 767X. This is a market segment that has no 1:1 replacement so far, so no direct competition with the A321XLR. Also it seems to be the easiest and quickest option. Upgrading the 737 would require a new wing. Upgrading the 757 would require re-installing the whole 757 production which would be very complex and expensive. Upgrading the 787 would require a new wing as well as the 787 wing is way too large and heavy.
And then theres the 767: production line running, perfectly sized, no oversized wing, also a modernized version even exists already, the Tanker. A slightly shortened 767-400ER with the technical upgrades of the Tanker and GEnx engines would be a hit. It would not even require a new landing gear as the 400 has enough ground clearance for the GEnx-2b.
Not to mention how the 767 would be a 'safe bet' - its a proven safe platform.
THAT'S IS TOO INTELLIGENT AND EFFECTIVE A SOLUTION!!! IT DOESN'T STAND A CHANCE!!!
@@falcon127 tf is wrong with you? Anyone that rights like that has problems
@@exoticgamer1235 Anyone that spells like that has a problem.
@@AlexxxxxSaysHi It was ONE mistake
The 757 has been out of production since 2004. restarting an updated version might not be easy. The 737 Max is already discredited and certainly cannot be expanded without completely giving up on safety. A new design would be needed which could be placed between the 321xlr and the 330neo but that might not be profitable. Also rumors are circulating about a 260 seat Airbus A322 with a new wing design.
For a second, I thought the “Paid Advertisement” was pointing to the American Airlines 737.
I think Boeing should pick option to regenerate 757 into 757X with same pax capacity but extended range to 6000 nm and better engine efficiency. It will be cheaper in this economic condition.
what elements compose an airliner? Judging by Super Guppy, it seems the fuselage can be almost any shape.
Here’s the thing that airlines need to worry about. Whatever release date Boeing announces, they’re guaranteed to miss their date by at least a year and probably more. They’re never on time. Then if the history of the 737MAX, 787, KC-46, and even the Starliner are any indication, the plane won’t be ready for prime time when it is released and there will probably be kinks that require groundings to get worked out. That being said, flying on a single aisle aircraft for long distances can get really claustrophobic, so I think there’s demand in the mark for a smaller and efficient wide body.
If I were Boeing I’d pursue a clean sheet that can replace the 757 first, then replace the 737 MAX over time - one R&D, one type rating, two markets for this product. Airlines that wait to order the NMA could then find an ability to require only one type rating, parts supply and fleet type to handle both short and middle-market missions when it becomes time to replace the MAX in the 2030s, which realistically is only 5-7 years after a realistic timeline for the first NMA to enter service.
I envision a composite narrowbody with primary boarding/deplaning through the L2 door, and a cabin roughly 9 inches wider than the 737/757 to enable wider Y seats; larger bins are assumed. Three lengths: a primary 757-200 and eventual 737 MAX 9/10 replacement, a “stretch” 757-300 replacement size, and a “mini” 737 MAX 8 replacement.
This type of aircraft would allow Boeing to catch up to Airbus by 2030 not only by having a NMA product but by having a single aircraft series that can handle both short and NMA flights.
A double bubble design like the Aurora D8 would be great candidate for the NMA.
There's also the problem of training inertia from the 737 family. Rather than invent a standardized cockpit with standardized systems across Boeing's fleet, each aircraft type is different. The 737 is just as jurassic in the cockpit as a 707. Nothing is truly integrated except for superficially so for pilots, it's a giant Rube-Goldberg machine. There are more exceptions than a rule. The Airbus families are very similar from a pilot training perspective, allowing a 320 pilot to get 330 qualified in a couple of days. If Boeing wants to compete, they need to do what Apple did when they moved from Power PC/MacOS over to an Intel/POSIX compliant OS. Boeing needs a major redesign that makes training super simple through very simple systems, largely abstracted by very advanced software. With the current state of computer engineering, videogame easy is certainly possible and needed at this point, without requiring a 4000 page AFM. Airframewise, it just needs to be something more scalable with simpler sub-systems (e.g. wiring that uses 3-4 conductors rather than dozens per bundle). Tesla did something like this to eliminate complex wiring harnesses.
You do know that you can transition from a 737NG/MAX to the 787 in 10 days ground school and 6 days in the simulator? And you’re allowed to fly both afterwards.
Boeing has ignored the 200-300 seat medium-haul market for too long. If they don't have a clean-sheet design for a new airliner to fit that role in the next five years, I think Boeing is as good as dead.
The 757 and 767 were brilliant designs for their time, but Boeing has been lazy lately. If they can't replace their discontinued models, they need to close shop. Their continued reliance on the 737 platform is proof of that.
And this is coming from a Washington State avgeek. Boeing has made amazing planes, but they have dropped the ball here. When Boeing makes a new plane that I can be proud of, I'll support them...but they made me become an Airbus fan.
I'm afraid you are right. Boeing was the king of the skyes for 50 years. But the criminal management made things wrong for some time now. Even the new B787 is a lame plane. No quality controls lead to that situation. I hope the future B777X will not have the same fate as the A380. Too big to fly after the pandemic. Airbus is challenging Boeing in each market segment and Boeing is lagging behind year after year. The cargo market is the next target for Airbus. With the A350F. And the A321 XLR could be the killer of the B737MAX. Boeing don't have the resources anymore to fight against Airbus like in the past. Airbus is in forward gear everywhere and anywhere. Boeing isn't. And for some years to come.
@@patrickpeters2903 the recent record Boeing order from Qatar proves that wrong. Boeing dominates the cargo industry for aircraft.
@@stevegiboney4493 qatar only order from boeing cause they have no option ... Airbus winning the race cause they already dominated the regional,short and medium haul section ... Airbus long haul is quiet good and the only good aircraft boeing ever have rn is b787 cause b777 are retired
What's the problem with 787-8 other than QC issues ?
Boieng is far from dead. They will definitely lose market share but there will always be a chance for comeback.
The 757 was one of the best airplanes, roomy, and sporty/powerful, Boeing needs to do a 757x, keep the old belts & suspenders (cable pulley control) vs fly by dire (wire/sw/servo control), just add composite sections, good to go!!
i think quickest/cheapest would be a 767X. 767 line is still open, with 787 leaving Everett there is capacity there. Slap on some new engines and make it like 767-200 sized. but Boeing doesnt have a great track record of re-engining legacy aircraft
I think 767X could be done. Actually Boeing did well the first time the original "stovepipe" 737 was re-engined to the 737 Classic serien, and again with 737 Next Generation. It was the recent MAX that problematic, and I would hope Boeing learned from that experience.
The 767 production line is for tankers only the rest of the tooling is gone to the best of my knowledge. So as the 787 is in full production there is no need and the A321 XLR has the market now. Boeing need to fix what's out there first as they are in the same position as DeHavilland were with the comet, they've lost their fan base and reputation the difference in the situation is only the Brita won't kick a dog when it's down like the US did with the Comet , Concorde, VC10 and TSR2........pure financial corporate selfish greed the US gov, Boeing, General Dynamics, Pan Am and Juan Tripp had a lot of influence in that and now they've thrown it away.
The more Airbus wings I see in the air the better I like it, I no longer trust Boeing aircraft now the Queen is retired and the 777X better be perfect or ill not trust that either but to ruin a 50 year old 737 rep with the max was suicidal.
This is my opinion and we all have them 🕊
That would work, I think Boeing should just do a new 757-300 and 767-200. Just make that have about 10K of range and it's good.
Why doesn't it have a great track record re- engineering legacy aircrafts? Because the Max had 2 crashes?
The Max has 5000 jets on Order. It certified safe to fly by the FAA despite both crashes it's still a success.
Boeing re engined the 747 twice , they have re engined the 777 once and will do it again with the 777X
They have re engined the 737 as well.
That's Pretty good if you ask me
_"Since the first clean sheet of paper was taken to it, things have changed a bit"..._ Yeah, no shit. You drove 2 aircraft to the ground!
If Boeing were smart, they’d replace the 737 as soon as possible with a somewhat larger plane, maybe 10-20 seats more in its standard config. Something to compete with Airbus and replace their antiquated 737. Then produce a stretch version that’s larger than any of the 321’s, with an even longer range. That would allow them to replace the 757/67 and compete with Airbus into the 2030s and beyond.
Isn’t that exactly what Boeing tried to do with the 737 Max?
@@trent_k No not really. The Max was taking the ancient 737 design beyond its limits. What they need is a brand new design - something similar to but more advanced than the 321 - that’s intentionally designed to come in a broad range of sizes and ranges. As broad as you can get in a narrow body in that general size class.
@@sunspot42 designing an entirely new aircraft is a massive undertaking, and airlines do not want to spend money on pilot training if they can avoid it, so Boeing tried to accomplish all of those goals you stated while still working under the 737 certificate.
Also its funny how your comment boils down to, “they should make a new airplane that replaces their old airplane and that new plane should be better than airplanes from other companies ” hahaha
Two airplane type offered. one based on the Max family and one based on the 787 family of aircraft is needed to put the NEO run in a box.
The 767 was the perfect design, I always loved the plane. Airbus has the perfect mid-sized options with the A321xlr plus the A330
Smooth commercial transition their 😆
The 767X is also a good idea, Boeing have been pressured by carriers who love the 767, like Delta. They have no plans to retire the -400ER variant, and have only recently announced that they will retire the -300ER in 4 years, even though these planes are now quite thirsty.
they already have the 787 that can replace the 767 so yea also they were going to make a 767x with a double deck but was scrapped due to the 767 not selling well.
Are there new B767s even being built? More carbon fiber and new low burn engines might help. Step up GE!
Which airplane models have lightweight batteries/accumulators, composite chassis and in which models? What happens to composite parts? They are less recyclable than plastic.
I flew the A321 (and 320/319) at USAirways prior to the American Merger. I liked the look of the jet but the 321 was a fat pig when it comes to performance. Too much weight on too little wing area. I remember departing Denver in the summertime. Our V1, VR, & V2 speeds would routinely be above 160 knots. I don't see how these extended versions of the 321 with extra fuel are going to do it unless they've increased the wing area. They'll need former Space Shuttle length runways.
It could be the same as it was with MD 11 - too high Vs and therefore hard to control
Boeing is aware that Airbus is sitting on plans for the stretched version of the A321neo dubbed the A322. Since Boeing is bleeding money from the fiasco of the B737 MAX programme, they could fine tune the B737-10 with is expected to go into service from 2023 to to a B737-10 'extend range' option but that couldn't compete with the 'A322". Boeing could look at a modern take of the B767 using the B787 technology as a twin 8 abreast or reduce the weight of the B787-8 to create an updated version of the B787-3.
It is a mistake that a company this large couldn't do two things at once.. fix the 737 Max and move forward with an NMA. Too much focus on profit and cost means taking your eye off the future such that you never catch up. Most employees feel the corporate shareholder focused management has failed the company.
I say that Boeing should just stop trading publicly on the stock exchanges. Though, it's a hard sell since stock purchases are a source of loans for most big corporations. The returns are how stockholders get their money back.
Rather then making a clean sheet design given the current scenario it makes sense to update the 757 or 767 or best option to make 787-3 which can be a potential game changer
The 787-3 is nothing but a 787-8 for short routes, we‘re looking for an aircraft for low demand long haul routes. Also of the 787-8 would be ideal NMA aircraft airlines would’ve already opted for it
Boeing is playing a wait-and-see game. In fact, they have nothing to offer and Airbus is simply in the lead. Boeing has to first focus on Max, 787, and 777x issues before venturing to new opportunities
More is hides and escapes game
I think that a new 767X, with new engines and wings burrowed from the 787 & 777X respectively, would be the best option. If Boeing gets it act together, they could time it so that they could seamlessly switch the production line from producing legacy 767 to the new 767X. Throw in a shrunken variant based on an updated of the original plans for the 767-100 and there’s your 757 replacement. Most of the pieces are already there, Boeing just has to put them together
if Boeing is doing this, Airbus will tweek it's A330neo and make it better than an 767x - meaning whatever billions Boeing spent, it was wasted. Even worse would be if Airbus would see the need to replace the A330. That would make the 767X obsolete and cause additional problems with the already troubled 787s.
A 767X definitely makes a lot of sense considering that the 767 is still in production, although I feel like a 767-100 would be dead on arrival. As it is a shrink it will never match the A321XLR's efficiency (shrinks are always less fuel efficient per seat because they tend to be very heavy for their size as they share most of their components with the larger variants, making them overbuilt for the smaller variant). Instead, Boeing should build a brand new narrowbody aircraft that can replace the larger 737 MAX variants (MAX 8 and up) and a long range variant of the largest version to replace the 757-200 and compete with the A321XLR.
@@Luke_Go Airbus already updated the A330 recently, in the mid-2010s IIRC, to compete with the 787 Dreamliner. There’s probably not much Airbus could do in terms of a NEW new engine option beyond maybe a cabin refresh, I doubt that there as been any completely game-changing improvement in turbofan engines over the Rolls Royces Trent 7000 in the current A330neo
@@TheWolfHowling You highlight the biggest problem: Boeing's newest clean-sheet airplane successfully competes against a 30-year-old A330. It's like choosing between a 1992 Ford Taurus and a 2011 BMW - and people choose the 1990s Taurus.....
Now imagine what would happen if Airbus were to spend 10% of the money that Boeing wasted on the 737max on a real A330 update (like new wings, etc.)!
Of course it won't be a game-changer, but if the historic A330neo can sucessfully compete against Boeing's best airplane (787), the A330 will certainly be able to compete against updated 757s or 767s!
@@Luke_Go The thing about the 787 vs A330neo is that the 787 is the superior, more technically advanced & fuel efficient plane but the A330neo can be had cheaper because it a refresh of the existing A330 airframe and has likely had a lot of the costs drilled out of the production. The A330neo program reportedly cost $2B USD is comparison to the $32B spent by Boeing Plus, Boeing still has ~430 787s in its backlog as of the end of May 2021, its going to take 3.5 years for an airline placing orders today to start receiving aircraft at Boeing current production rate of ~10 787 a month. Although, having said that, Airbus only seems to be producing 2 A330s a month currently but that might just be due to the pandemic pushing demand down. However, I believe the original sales pitch was that airlines could get a cheaper but less fuel efficient plane sooner by going with the A330neo as opposites to a more fuel efficient but more expensive plane that will take years longer to be delivered. Coby Explanes did an excellent video about the A330neo a while back [ruclips.net/video/mPnKAKrSsOg/видео.html ]. Airlines are for profit businesses and they are going to do whatever can make them the most money. If they can operate a new A330neo cheaper than a 787 even when accounting for the increased fuel burn, that’s what they are going to do, especially if they already have A330 trained pilots and can displace older legacy -200 & -300. The facts are that re-engining existing airframes is simply far more cost effective then brand new designs, both for manufacturers & airlines. Here’s another video from Found & Explained on the topic [ruclips.net/video/go_GlZPIEZE/видео.html ]
They would simply use a B-52 as a starting platform and add a 10 billion tag to Air Force 1 to pay for the new NMA...
HAHAHA!!!!! Boeing the BIG plane builder! From the Second World War till now.
American been on using these in Cleveland area
We want to see the 797!
Much as the b757 was a great aircraft in its day it is old, to bring it up to spec it would need FBW, a new or drastically improved wing, new engines of the appropriate power and it would still be stuck with a narrow cabin. Boeing scrapped all the tooling years ago as the b757 was considerably more expensive to make than enlarging and developing the b737 to NG. That decision is one of many that has brought Boeing to this position. Remember anything Boeing chooses to do will simply prompt a more capable A322 variant, something based on a far later platform with much easier scope to improve. The only reason for Airbus not developing this variant is that they have no need. If they felt a need to re-wing the A321 be assured they have looked at it very carefully and could beat any Boeing offering to EIS.
They should have never shut down the 757. Just updated it. It would have kept a good portion of the market from Airbus.
Awesome and Nice video
My bet is Boeing should do what they did with the 757 & 767 - design two new aircraft together. It was a super smart move and I can imagine hugely efficient. So Boeing knows the 737Max is gone - yes it will still sell but mainly because of price and availability to the plane. If there was a new single isle that mirrored the 757 (but new development) and a dual 767ish sized Boeing would move from major holes in their offering to completing extremely well. And the background project would be a smaller 160 - 180 seat on the same platform ready to launch early 2030’s.
Honestly I hope they're going the twin-aisle 2-3-2 layout route, with an elliptical fuselage.
music at 09:39 someone klnows the name?
4:44
Missing Jet airways
With new mcas called mdrop 🥴😅
A engineered 767X would the best solution since they already make an airframe for that model.
It would be nice if they could modify the 767 to have a 2-2-2 configuration instead of 2-3-2. Doing this would mean that it would only hold about the same amount of passengers as the 757, BUT it would be a dual-aisle configuration, which would make for quicker boarding AND it would give passengers either an aisle or window seat - no awkward middle seat. Plus, doing so would help to alleviate traffic jams during meal service times, especially for those sitting in the middle. On the last few mission trips that I’ve been on, I’ve flown on a Delta 757, and every flight has consisted of passengers playing human Tetris in the aisles and galleys, trying to get to the lavatories while flight attendants are trying to perform cabin service. Having another aisle would help eliminate some of the traffic congestion.
The 2-2-2 configuration doesn’t make economic sense, which is why there are no such configurations that I am aware of. (First class seating doesn’t count.) The 2-3-2 configuration of the 767 is ideal, in my opinion.
Like GH1618 already said, there’s no benefit in 2-2-2. It‘s wasted space while having the same capacity per row. Also service would have to happen in two aisles. I expect the 797 to get a 2-3-2 configuration like the 767 had
Boeing is toast. I have flown millions of miles on their planes. Now it is hard to avoid Airbus on any trip, ANYWHERE, domestic (USA) or foreign. Sad that they are fast becoming the General Motors of aircraft manufacturers.
Boeings problem is the Board of Directors. They are ALL MBAs. All they care about is share value. The last couple;e of years I worked as a contractor on the 77, every new meeting slice had "Share Value" as the top line and goal of each meeting. They will milk it dry, break it up and sell off the pieces (As they did with McDonald and Douglas) and America will no longer have a company making commercial aircraft. Airbus and the Chinese will own the market.
@@chuckhershiser9900 Any chance said BoDs is a group of unwitting pro-Chinese agents? They are not entirely aware of just how their actions constitute collusion with a foreign actor. Or are they really just good globalist toadies after all?
Engineers should be CEOs, not economistz
I agree with those who prefer an enhanced 757. Sacrifice the capacity in lieu of greater range and airport accessibility. Secondary hubs and focus cities would benefit greatly, especially when it comes to international route expansion.
There is a limited market for the 757/767. That why they were discontinued. But they could consider clean sheet that uses the same materials as the 787 for commonality. It should overlap with the largest 737, which is already very popular and the biggest seller. Then build a smaller aircraft to compete with the A200. Essentially, 2 aircraft is offered to customers.
Perhaps a more rigorous test program this time, to iron out the many problems that are sure to crop up.
The 757 has been out of production for years. Do you really think Boeing would incur the re-tooling costs for a model that dates back to the 1970s? If you do, you are delusional. In the case of the 767, the only thing keeping that line open is the KC-46 tanker version for the USAF and that program is seriously over budget and behind schedule. So much so that the USAF is looking for an alternative unmanned tanker.
4&4 seating, with increased pitch?
Face it: Boeing is no longer the company that combines innovation and reliability. This has nothing to do with the unions and everything with management. There is a third competitor, Comac that will be delivering the C919 this year. Let’s see what happens to the market if that plane is a succes.
Ryanair is definitely interested.
It will take years for Comac to satisfy the domestic demand. When(or if) C919 proves itself in China home market as reliable and cheap to operate, it's game over for Boeing. All third world market will buy Comac planes.
True. The most vile place for employees working at Boeing were the non-union departments. There corrupt management was free to overwork diligent people to support their parasitical cronies. A comfortable club for some. I was slightly anti-union before (being aware of pros and cons), but after suffering from extremely corrupt managers, I realized that companies who have unions deserve them, and those unions are an asset for diligent workers. If management would treat employees right, there's no need for a union. Overwork some employees while grinding down others . . . changes need to be made.
The main issue with using the 737/757 with presumably new wings as a starting point is that the Airbus 320 series fuselage is already 6" wider and therefore at a distinct advantage should they decide to re-wing as well.
Assuming that Boeing do go for a clean sheet design with both greater development time and cost, just how much better can it be made than say a rewinged A320 series which could be developed for a lot less money and far more quickly.
If the narrow body option is chosen, Airbus can probably wait until Boeing release a clean sheet design and get their offerring to market first.
That's the point really - has the A321XLR gobbled up enough of the market to mean that it won't be commercially viable for Boeing to develop a clean sheet design?
@@oldchinahand1305 Quite possibly (probably?) On the other hand, can they afford not to have a foot in each and every sector to retain their status as a major manufacturer who can meet any airlines varied needs, or do they concentrate only on profitable areas and risk losing business to anyone who wants a single supplier for the bulk of their fleet?
Between a rock and a hard place seems to sum up their situation.
Many criticised Airbus (and continue to do so) for creating the A330neo, but it could be just what they needed to keep a presence in what was a very profitable sector for them, apart from which it now seems to have the potential to be a slow burner which becomes a success
Pehaps Boeings biggest mistake was to continue to develop the 737 rather than the 757 and 767 which so many airlines are now desparate to replace.
This is I believe what happens when you follow the bean counters desire to maximise short term profits and share price (and therefor bonuses) at the expense of ensuring long term stability.
Neil, the NMA would be optimised for the routes the aircraft is built for. The A320 series isn’t, it is tweaked to do what it was never designed for..
@@ACPilot I wouldn't even attempt to disagree, however, it can only be a truly optimised design for a particular use, for anything else, it has to be sub-optimal (although it could still be excellent) or tweaked to make it less so. The trick is to come up with something which is almost perfect for a multitude of uses (and depending on how you define the word, that could be another type of optimal - I would argue one more appropriate for the real world), and yes, that should be much easier to achieve with a clean sheet, but at what cost, and can those additional costs be justified?
If fairly priced, it is inevitable that any NMA, will cost more, possibly even significantly more than any A321 variant which could be used for the same purpose. I am not suggesting that the NMA wouldn't be superior (if it isn't, Boeing should leave the industry in shame) but the question will always be 'is it superior by enough to justify that additional cost'? It all boils down to how much profit you can extract from plane A when compared to plane B on your intended routes. And as for never being designed for, I totally agree; a bit of an over-simplification on my part, but increasing the fuel capacity and beefing up the undercarriage along with a few other reinforcements and tweaks has resulted in something quite simply brilliant, but something which should be easy to beat, but may well be difficult to crush. However, the question will be, which could do it more cost effectively, a cheaper re-winged (possibly re-positioned) A320 series, or a superior, but more expensive NMA?
What will come after the 797 though?, An 807 or 808?
I think what will happen is that Boeing will drop the idea of a Middle of the Market Airplane (MMA) and essentially do a modernized version of the _Yellowstone 1_ plane that was studied between 2003 and 2009. That way, they can replace everything from the 737-800 all the way up to the 757-200.
i think Boeing should prioritise getting the TIA for the 777x for now after the FAA basically has said "We're not putting our people on that plane because it is not mature enought and full of bugs"...
i think there's only 2 options left for Boeing, re-wing the 767 or restart the 787-3 but with wings for 5000-6000nmi, and i opt for the latter
the 757 market is pretty much lost to the A321XLR, so might as well not go into it at all
The 787-3 is just a -8 with shorter range and different wings, airlines would’ve opted for the 787-8 if it was the ideal NMA aircraft
They need a new clean sheet design
I think Boeing should just make an upgraded version of both the 757 and 767. Sense these aircraft fit the market of narrow body mid range jets for both domestic and short range international travels, it be a shame not to re-engined the 757 or 767. They can barrow the same Dreamliner design from the 787 and be more fuel efficient, coming up with a completely new aircraft would be a waste of time for Boeing.
That's what the 787 is. It's the size of a 767 with better fuel economy due to carbon fiber construction
Boeing seriously should have updated the 757 and 717 to compete with the A321 XLR and the A220!
Agreed
I remind anytime I see the A220 mentioned it is a CANADIAN plane designed and built by Bombardier.
And we Canadian and Quebec taxpayers paid for it!
@@michaelrmurphy2734 no it's not your airplane anymore, it's Airbus'. Deal with it
@@aslamnurfikri7640 Yes it is. Always has been, always will be. You own shares in Airbus? WE do!!!
717 will never be updated as the engineering for the engines would be an absolute expense!
Agree with the 757.
yes
I wonder if Airbus is already working on an extension to the A321 or maybe a A222 to be ready to offer something as an answer to a new Boeing?
A Boeing NMA will likely come from a clean sheet 737 sometime in the next 5 to 10 years - a design that would fit from the current size of a 737-8 and a 757-200 (they are both the same cabin width). Or you could shorten the 787-8 a segment or two - bring the wing size down and de-power the engine and have a great plane - but likely TOO expensive no matter what. Figure a A321XLR costs $100M a copy, even a cheap version of the 787 would have to be $120 to $150M - but a 737MAX8xtr with extra capacity tanks to make for a 4500 mile range might sell for $75 to $80M each - there is the answer. A super long range 737MAX selling until the next gen 737/797 clean sheet design - would be for delivery in 2035 or so ... by this time the A321XLR will be at end of life ... this can be done (if Boeing can stop stepping on their wankers).
Too bad after enriching themselves for the last few years and future cost of 737MAX, shareholders wont like to bleed so much cash to develop a new plane. With Airbus A321XLR already in the market and not so much cash, we will probably see again another shortcut solution like 797MAX.
Semi-unrelated. After the 797, what will be the next Boeing civil aircraft type? The 808 (inevitably known on the plant floor as the 'Bob')?
Originally, the 700 numbers meant "passenger aircraft" 9I think, or something similar), with 600, 800, etc. for other aircraft types. So possibly:
1. Boeing sticks to this, and uses letters (7M7 was a placeholder name, but could work fine for actual planes), giving them 26 more planes to think of a new system, go 7@7 or such, or use foreign alphabets.
2. Boeing drops the 7 at the end, sort of like the 720, and just names things using any last digit. This would be confusing, since instead of variants having similar numbers, you'd have totally different planes using similar numbers. ("The 747 was a large capacity plane in the mid to late 1900's, while the 742 if a medium/small capacity plane first made in 2055")
3. Different types of planes with different numbers hasn't been used for so long that they do your bob thing.
My guess is ! is most likely, followed by 3, followed by something I haven't thought of, than 2. Other people may vary.
Boeing seems to be stuck in the 1980s .
Thank you for watching! 😊✈️
Np
The Sonic Cruiser!!!!!!!
The "Qantas order" isn't for Qantas. It's for Qantas Group, which includes Jetstar.
The plan is to send the A321XLRs to Jetstar so that the 11 787-8s that JQ have can go to Qantas.
Yup. The A321XLR will work very well for the regional LCCs. Wonder when will singapore airlines order it for their LCC Scoot. All the regional LCCs like AirAsia, cebu Pacific, vietjet has the lots of A321neo on order with options to convert to the XLR.
757 > everything 🤷🏽♂️
what we are interested is will passengers get more space in the air-craft ? More safety and cheaper air-ticket price !?
I'd love to see a 797 twin-aisle 2-3-2 in coach and 1-2-1 in first or smaller 787 IMHO
I agree with you. A composite style 767-200.
@@christopherhennessey8991 bigger than the MAX, the range of the 757, not as wide as the 767, smaller than the 787.
It ain't happening. Now or Ever. Boeing Expects 737 Max Costs Will Surpass $18 Billion! They will need a few good years before starting any new ventures. Too bad they waste their time on the 777-X. They would be better off clean-sheeting a 737 replacement.
So why not abandon the 737 Max?
@@aycc-nbh7289 Let's just say contract hell, and leave it at that.
A B787-3 would be too big. I think they should ramp up the B757 with composite wings and nearer more efficient engines. When the B787 came out airbus didnt make another plane. They re-engined the A330 and made it cheaper than the B787. I think if Boeing did this with the B757 it would stop some of the bleeding. The A350 is in competition with the B777 and the B787 competes with the A330. The A321 XLR is just a modern day B757.
B787 competes with the A330
@@NarasimhaDiyasena your right. My bad I completely typed it wrote. I was thinking the right plane but typed the wrong one.
Thinking that a 797 model would not come before 2025 to 2030, I'm not sure wich way Boeing will go. With the 787 they have a really potential wide body which is a little bit too big in general. A refurbished 757 sounds logical but maybe it's base isn't optimal to reach a next generation aircraft in terms of environmental impact and economical usage. Also they will lose a lot of potential 797-customers to airbus with it's XLR. So I think it would be logical to start a clean-sheet-project to replace the 737 with options to reach in the middle of the market like airbus. If they would start with that aircraft in 2030 with much more fuel efficency like a 320 or 321 but an option like a XLR, they maybe could safe the rising market of small size airplanes.
What about the 787-3 that was on the Boeing drawing board years ago?
It‘s the same size as the 787-8 but has other wings. If that would be the NMA airlines would’ve already ordered the 787-8
I think the 757 re-engineering is the best option
I suspect though that this would almost cost the same to develop as a clean sheet, without the benefits of new technology. All the tooling is long gone, as are the parts manufacturers. Notably, Boeing isn't really discussing this as a option - only us 757 fans are!
@@jackroutledge352 learning from the mistakes of the max I think maybe something can be done but perhaps your right with respect to the parts manufacturers
On my opinion use original 757 with redesigned wings and all new engines is lower cost of development than designing all new aircraft
Speaking of cabin use already designed Boeing sky interior like 737NG and 737MAX
And technologies and cockpit use similar design of Boeing KC-46 a hybrid design between 787 and 757/767
I've talked to a lot of people involved in aircraft projects. Developing new airplanes became very complicated and expensive because everyone involved tries to maximize profit and financial gain. The cost of developing the NMA will easily reach 13 to 15 billion, meanwhile airlines are trying to pay less for aircraft. The financial cost of new airplanes is so high that will upset the benefits of fuel efficiency. The reality is that will be hard to offset the A321 XLR. The NMA has a maximum market of 1,500 airplanes. Airbus can drop the price of the A321 XLR and fight the NMA.
Hope the new ceo of boeing will make the great idea of the nma or just rebranding the old 757 or just modernizing it itslef.
Meanwhile they do not also have a competitor to the Airbus A220 they will loose market share significantly .
So the question remains: Reboot of 757 or a310?
An idea is make the 787-8 more narrow with 7 abreast
One thing to consider is that Airbus’s factories are scattered across Europe and tensions between countries or regions may hamper development of their plane.
Can somebody explain why a 737 MAX 10 with an extended range wouldn’t work. It appears to have the capacity.
yes but the 757 has a much higher MTOW too thanks to it's powerful engines
Can't wait for the boeing anime I'd like to see that
767X would be sweet
Whenever Boeing builds a new plane it needs to be the 737 replacement. Go full composite, designed with a -10 version from the start, and be ready when all these 321s need to be replaced. For right now, use the 767 or 787 to cover NMA.
Instead of focusing on quality, Boeing focused on cost cutting. In the end, it cost them more money by cutting corners. They wanted to outsource everything and in doing so, it caused schedule delays, quality control problems, and even a loss of worker talent. They had to get on their knees to get the old mechanics and machinists to come back in order to save their schedules. Every employee knew Boeing was done when they tried to do the "integrator" role. It was a running joke. I doubt they have learned their mistakes because the old McDonald Douglas hacksaw executives are still running the show.
As a 767-Fan, I’d love to see a 767X 😍