EVERY Airlines BEGS For The New Airbus A321XLR. Here's WHY
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 май 2024
- For almost a generation, the Boeing 757 has dominated the “middle of the market” airspace but eras come to an end and after decades being kings of this sector it seems there could be a fresher, more capable challenger for its spot in town, glide in, the Airbus A321XLR.
To understand why the XLR will replace the Boeing 757, we need to start from the beginning.
California turns out to be in Russia, while Munich in Germany is placed in North America. Remarkable 😮
4:12 wait why does California to Munich look like Mongolia to Dallas 😢😂 but why I'm I surprised in the age of "alternative facts"
In addition, flying from California to Munich would mean flying to the east, not the west
@@sebk42 I was referring to the graphics on the video how it was depicted not the actual sense of it.
And they are also over 5300nm apart, which the XLR obviously can't fly 🤣
The 757 was only dominant in the USA. Most of the big carriers in Europe and Asia never ordered it.
Well, you can trust the Americans to make a big deal out of something so insignificant 😂😅.
BA had a few of them in the day. They were also good for charter traffic too.
Condor:
British Airways:
Britannia Airways:
There were loads of 757 operators in Europe and Asia.
China Southern? Condor? British Airways? Iberia?
Indeed, 757 is the the best plane from Boeing by far. Now after they lost the short-haul market, they are going to loose the mid-haul one to A330neo + A321(X)LR. Airbus surely knows this weak point as their most priority is on this segment. They seems to patiently take each market one-by-one.
It's the worst by the only metric that really matters: Cost.
Boeing should have modernised the 757 rather than just drop it.
Agreed, scaled up CFM leap engines or scaled down 787 engines would work well on a modernized 757, along with a new composite wing based off the 787 or 777-300ER
Main reason why 757 production was halted is because its very expensive. Now even more expensive compared to A321XLR whose parts has the economy of scale.
The 757 is too heavy. It was developed alongside the 767 widebody. As a result the 757 is way overbuilt with internal systems largely common with the much larger/heavier 767.
No. It 's heavier and there is no modern engine available that fits, and developing a new one for ust one oddball type is a big ricsc for engine makers.
There are several other disadvantages that would have made a 757max more expensive than A320:
-It has a larger wingspan, 38m. Thatputs it into the same airort fee class as a up to 52m wingspan aircraft, much higher Airport and overfly fees.
-It doesn't fit in the very numerous gates A320 and 737 fits in.
- It is an oddball, while the XLR is just another A320 with same pilot pool without training, with the very best fleet commonality of the highest numbers selling aircraft today. Makes maintaniance, spareparts and training so much more cheapert han flying an oddball with no commonality.
-It is heavier wich has it's own higher fees attached to it.
If Boeing would have made it and one engine manufacturer put in that crazy amount of money developing an angine that perfectly fits to it for billions, the risc of that investment being written off is still very high, as it cannot match the cost of operating a A320 by a long shot. And the XLSr basically does the same as the 757max would have.
Boeing was smart not to even try it. Not that they would have found an engine maker to support them..
4:09 I almost gouged my eyes out when I saw California being pinned in Russia and Munich being pinned in the USA
About that map @4:11... sorry had to stop video. Really???
Bros geography knowledge 🗿💀
Boeing has stated they have no plans to start any new projects until after 2035. They won't be in existence by then. No new projects means most of their engineers will not be replaced when they retire and they won't have experienced engineering talent when they do decide to work on new projects again. IMHO what they need to do is a 757 MAX, a modernized 757 with scaled down 787 engines or scaled up CFM Leap engines and new composite wing, they could develop the aircraft pretty quickly and wouldn't face the limitations of the 737 MAX as the 737 MAX had to add MCAS because of the weird placement of the new engines due to the 737s very low ground clearance.
😂
Scaled down engines or scaled up ones are less efficient than engines purposefully designed for the power needed. So they would consume more than the A321 engines.
There are several other aspects that will make the 757max inferior and more expensive to operate than A321:
-It has a larger wingspan, 38m. That puts it into the same airort fee class as a up to 52m wingspan aircraft, much higher Airport and overfly fees.
-It doesn't fit in the very numerous gates A320 and 737 fits in.
- It is an oddball, while the XLR is just another A320 with same pilot pool without training, with the very best fleet commonality of the highest numbers selling aircraft today.
- Makes maintaniance, spareparts and training so much more cheapert han flying an oddball with no commonality.
-It is heavier wich has it's own higher fees attached to it.
If Boeing would have made it and one engine manufacturer put in that crazy amount of money developing an engine that perfectly fits to it for billions, the risc of that investment being written off is still very high, as it cannot match the cost of operating a A320 by a long shot. And the XLSr basically does the same as the 757max would have.
Boeing was smart not to even try it. Not that they would have found an engine maker to support them..
4:12 OH DEAR geography in shamble. A321XLR 4700nm now down to 4500nm due to recent regulation in fuel tank strengthening.
To the maker of this video: So many many times you say "aircrafts". This is wrong. The plural of aircraft is aircraft.
The reason Boeing was dominant in the past was because it had no opposition, plus it was driven by engineering and not wall st. The way for Boeing to get back in the game is through engineering and they have not got long because although Airbus is doing well, there's the new apponent in the wings-China. Once they get their act together, both Boeing and Airbus will have their hands full
By flexing of wingit absorbs air stream softly creating smooth lift and maneuver only for 787,777x and 737
4:08 This map hurts my eyes 😂😂😂
Boeing lost the grip on technical leadership. The B737 Max disaster and the multiple and repetitive flaws with the B787 assembly showed the Boeing management focused more on costs and stock prices than on engineering and customers needs. Today Airbus is leading the way in the single aisle segment and is quite competitive in the widebody segment too. The A350 is beating the B777. And the A330 NEO is ramping up against the very popular B787. And soon the A350F will compete against the future B777-8F....
The a330 neo isn't winning over the 787 and the 777 isn't dying out but yeah airbus definitely is dangerous to boeing sales
I’ll say that Boeing has the 787 triumphing over the a330. No one orders it but the 787 family is being purchased alot. I believe the 777x will hopefully give Boeing an advantage
CORRECT! When “greed” and profit margins rule the day over safety and professionalism, you get the 737max. SICKENING AND DISGUSTING. Smh.
Airbus needs to sell a lot of planes to overcome the A380 costs. Total sale of 250 units after all the years of R&D , overcoming logistics costs et al. I doubt it did little more than break even. They misread the market badly.
@@frankmoreau8847 And American companies are buying all types of Airbus aircraft in bunches. The 777 and 787 are keeping Boeing from disappearing. It didn’t have to be that way, but Boeing decided that greed and profit margins were more important than passenger AND pilot safety. By the way, I’m flying an American Airlines neo321 to AND from California in a few days. Smh.
The plural of aircraft is aircraft
Will Boeing bring out a narrow body 787’ (797?)like , that would replace the 757 and be superior the any A320-XR/XLR Neo combination?
There should also be a hot and high version of the A321 with bigger engines for customers that bought the 757 for its takeoff performance.
The longer that Boeing delays, the more of the mid market will be taken by Airbus.
At the moment, the only choice many airlines have is to replace their end of life 757s with A321s or change their business model.
Eventually, that mid market could shrink to a size which makes entry unprofitable until sifficient A321s are ready for replacing.
Unlike as was the case with the 757 which ran out of orders before there was sufficient demand created by the earliest 757s being retired, the A321 is just a variant within a model range. This allows its continued existence to be justified even if demand slows to a trickle.
We are currently seeing evidence of this with the A319neo which would almost certainly have been discontinued had it not been an A320 series family member.
Airbus can afford to wait to see if demand for it picks up, which was always likely to be slow as being one of the younger members of the family, few have been ready for replacement.
Make sure you know your map... 😂
Nah. It's just alternate history where the Germans won in 1940 but just got nuked and moved over the ocean.
Yes munich is the town close to Seattle
😊❤I can't wait to fly on there A321XLR for 2025 after there 2024 Release!!!!
My question is, Since the 757 is such a success, why can't Boeing work on a newer version of the 757 with more advanced features and more fuel efficient modern engines
It might be that Boeing's market analysis shows that it isn't viable. It was their market analysis that let the 747 age out rather than attempting a competitor for the A380. The S380, while a marvel of engineering, is a failure in total sales. 250 units and an 18 year production run vs the 747 1500+ units and a 55 year production run.
Boeing had the opportunity to re engine the 767-200 with the GenX 747x engine.
Not only would that massively extend their cargo market stranglehold it would have made a very interesting MoM aircraft.
Big mistake imho.( note unlike 757 the 767 is still in production both civil and military).
FedEx and UPS are both buying increasing numbers of 767 freighters to replace many of their aging airframes. Boeing stopped making passenger 767’s almost 10 years ago, but they’re still actively building new airframes for the cargo carriers.
What I don't understand is that Boeing didn't take example from Airbus and redesigns the 757 but with more efficient engines.
Or did they let go of all engineers in that department?
No. It 's heavier and there is no modern engine available that fits, and developing a new one for ust one oddball type is a big ricsc for engine makers.
There are several other disadvantages that would have made a 757max more expensive than A320:
-It has a larger wingspan, 38m. Thatputs it into the same airort fee class as a up to 52m wingspan aircraft, much higher Airport and overfly fees.
-It doesn't fit in the very numerous gates A320 and 737 fits in.
- It is an oddball, while the XLR is just another A320 with same pilot pool without training, with the very best fleet commonality of the highest numbers selling aircraft today. Makes maintaniance, spareparts and training so much more cheapert han flying an oddball with no commonality.
-It is heavier wich has it's own higher fees attached to it.
If Boeing would have made it and one engine manufacturer put in that crazy amount of money developing an angine that perfectly fits to it for billions, the risc of that investment being written off is still very high, as it cannot match the cost of operating a A320 by a long shot. And the XLSr basically does the same as the 757max would have.
Boeing was smart not to even try it. Not that they would have found an engine maker to support them
Oslo: the reduction to 4500nm means it can barely not reach San Francisco, Tokyo, Bangkok
While the 4500 nautical mile range is impressive who in their right mind would fly for 8-9 hours in a single aisle airplane more than once? There is a reason that you don't see the major airlines flying single aisle airplanes across the Atlantic. 4 hours is enough in a 757 from the Midwest to California. As someone who has flown a couple million miles between United and American i would take a connection before a single aisle from Vancouver to Munich almost 10 hour flight. ( LH flies an A350-900).
The seat is the same in economy or business. What’s your hesitation unless you’re flying First?
Airbus and Embrar should take this commercial space over
Embraer is partially owned by Boeing and eventually will likely become a Boeing subsidiary.
And who wants to fly long range in a a320 ? These new planes are so uncomfortable i would never consider even flying more than few hours in anything than a 787.
The 787 in a 333 configuration is just as cramped as a single isle aircraft
Airlines cramming widebodys more and more, 10 abreast 777 or 9 abrest in 330 are hell.
No one will ever cram more than 6 rows into an A320, which has wider seats then most widebodies.
And if I have to choose between a 11h flight nonstop or a 3 stop regional-hub (to fill widebodies) flight of 18h with the risc of not getting a connections,. you will not be able to pull me on that 3 stop flight.
That is what the A321XLR is for: making thin routes with to few passengers for widebodies a direct connection that was a regional to hu-widebody-regional to small airport before.
I bet you will also not take the 3 stop connection 6h longer to avoid flying a plane that has wider seats without stop. There is nobody on earth that wouldn't take the new opened direct routes XLR enables.Nobodie is that crazy masochistic.
Boeing would be in trouble IF the 321 XLR was to come on stream as planned.
However, that cursed engine of doom called the GTF has benkrupted Bkmbardier, reulted in the most woeful deeply loss making availability figures for Swiss and Air Balric.
The airframe maybe ready, but the efficiencies are predicted on the GTF doing its thing, which is highly unlikely. I fully expect the XLR to be one more thing dragged down and eoomed by its association with the infernal GTF
I can't wait to sit on single aisle long haul flights! /s
Airlines have been doing this for decades with the 757. What's. The difference? Actually the 321 is wider and quieter
@@Emir_de_PassyThis.- Airlines cramming widebodys more and more, 10 abreast 777 or 9 abrest in 330 are hell.
No one will ever cram more than 6 rows into an A320, which has wider seats tham most widebodies.
And if I have to choose between a 11h flight nonstop or a 3 stop regional-hub (to fill widebodies) flight of 18h with the risc of not getting a connections,. you will not be able to pull me on that 3 stop flight.
That is what the A321XLR is for: making thin routes with to few passengers for wwidebodies a direct connection that was a regional to hu-widebody-regional to small airport before.
I bet he will also not takle the 3 stop connection 6h longer to avoid flying a plane that has wider seats without stop. There is nobody on earth that wouldn't take the new opened direct routes XLR enables.
4:10 California in the US and Munich Germany... well... I guess the graphics was made by an American, right?
A320 Series and comfort in one sentence?
Amazing how Boeing just walked away from this target market...NOT. Let's hear an update in about a year.
I guest Air Asia Will open the next Route from KL to Hawaii 😅😁.
Wow. Newark to Rome in a narrow body jet. Impressive.
That would be amazing. Would United be doing this route?
If they can they will. Given the numbers stated at the least they can make it to England and France, Spain and Portugal
Who put the 'S' in aircraft?
The plural of aircraft is not aircrafts.
Range isn't the only reason an airline chooses a plane. Cargo makes more money than passengers. The 757 still did what the XLR cannot. Passengers AND cargo. Combined with short field, hot and high situations.
Have you verified your claim? You tried to be smart and proved otherwise.
What is the max payload for an aircraft? It's the takeoff weight minus the empty weight and operating load. The maximum payload capacity is the amount of freight you can carry on the aircraft.
In a commercial context (i.e., an airline or air freight carrier), payload may refer only to revenue-generating cargo or paying passengers.
Aircraft Max Payload Range at Range At
Max Payload Max Fuel Range
3,000 3,250 3,500 3,750 4,000
757-200 25 3,100 3,800 25.0 23.9 22.1 20.4 15.1
A321LR 23.5 3,050 4,000 23.5 22.5 21.0 19.5 18.0
The Boeing 757-200 gave way to the Airbus 321LR. The new Airbus a321xlr is better than the a321LR and the Boeing 757-200.
A321 XLR Specification Value
MTOW (metric tons) 101
Max Payload (metric tons) 24
Range at Max Payload (nm) 3,650
Range at Max Fuel (nm) 4,700
Payload at Max Fuel (metric tons) 18
@@siroliver9889 As and airline pilot who has flown both aircraft (11,000+ hours in 757/767 and 6000+ hours in A319/320/321), I can tell you the A321XLR is NOT a replacement for the 757. Everyone focuses on range, range, range, that's not what is special about the 757, it's the performance, the wing. The 757 can take off out of SNA 5700' runway full people, fuel and bags/cargo and fly cross country, at high Flight Levels and with IFR reserves for two alternates. It can fly to all the mountainous cities Delta serves such as SJO, GUA, BOG, JAC, UIO and many others. Except for the 319 or 737-700 (but don't carry many PAX), nothing has the performance to do it without resorting to Packs-off takeoffs/APU-to-bleed takeoffs with performance so bad you have to leave with less than full passengers, fuel and/or bags/cargo. With performance so bad they're usually unable to meet the RNAV SID climb restrictions...ever. We must ask ATC for relief from the crossing restrictions on virtually any leg where we are near max takeoff weight. Boeing and Airbus are so proud of their 737NG's, 737 Max's, A321s, bragging those aircraft have fuel savings greater than 20% over the aircraft they replace. Heck, they have 20% less performance, so yeah that's where your fuel savings comes from. Also, the new 737s and A321s are so performance limited they're stuck at the lower flight levels (FL 320-340) unable to top the weather. This requires weather deviations equally hundreds of miles on a typical summer cross-country flight (there goes your fuel savings). Flying at lower altitudes frequently means a bumpier ride as well, as we are stuck in the clouds while the 757s fly over our heads. The A321XLR is no replacement for the 757, all they've done is add more fuel tanks to the A321NEO. Big whoop...But hey everyone loves the new jet smell.
What Cargo? There have been times when Cargo airlines stored their aircraft due to toatal lack of demand.
And the XLR is actually better in every part of the Payload-range chart. If Cargo makes more money, Airlines could just book less passengers and fly more cargo. Which they somehow don't do, so I extremely doubt that cour claim, that cargo makes more money, is correct. Why aren't they flying half-empty planes with bellies full of cargo?
And hot an high is what 5% of the routes max.
@@Chris_1024_you obviously have not been keeping up with recent news. People have been denied boarding because of “oversold” flights that end up with empty seats. Why? Because the airline kept the freight in the belly but has to lose weight so they denied boarding to passengers
Do it Airbus A321 is an awesome plane
let's get the thing certified first.
Looks like someone forgot that not EVERY SINGLE AIRLINE WANTS THIS PLANE southwest airlines, ryanair, alaska airlines are probably not getting the a321XLR
Probably but still, there are over 200 airlines in the industry. This means no shortage of interests for the A321XLR.
Notice the trend there, they are all north American airlines except Ryanair which wasn't going to switch so not sure why you put it there
@@mwat22 what Im trying to say here is that not every airline wants the a321 xlr
@@ronanaviation9520yea coz not every airline needs an XLR. Just like not every airline needs an A220 or 777
Range, Passenger cap. Only issue will be European regulators
I suspect Boeing had no proper competition before Airbus.
And they grew so large and so dominant, they kept selling old stuff with newer efficient engines just because they're Boeing. No other manufacturer could pulled it up.
And before you say Airbus made the same with the NEOs, it's not even close. Airbus are fly-by-wire machines, meaning, it's not only the engines and cabin interior that's new, they're cockpit and flight controls are also new. It's easier to design new systems, than to build the same with old tech from the 80s. On the other side, we see Boeing 737 Max, still a cables and pulleys kind of aircraft with two computers running 80286 intel processors.
...and to be honest, it's a shame. Boeing still has the know how, they invented most of it ...and they're being managed by short profit investor oriented incompetent people.
EDIT: They lost a lot of market share in the small single aisle commercial aviation and now it seems they're going to loose some in the middle sector as well.
797 due to lack of engine options… urm the RR UltraFan is just sitting there like 🤷🏽♂️
I am sure only few want to buy an unproven engine from RR - Rotating Rubbish..
@@ACPilot RB211 was unproven… then became an icon?
Airbus in Hamburg Germany ❤️🔥
Umm who researched and wrote the commentary for this video? Airbus lists the A321XLR as having a range of 4700 miles. But in the video, the commentator mentions London to Seattle (4711 miles) and gets the maths wrong again with routes. LAX-MUN = 5974 miles.
Boeing should fit new engines, some composites body parts and folding wings to 757
Same Desaster as with the Max
For sure. And it won't have the same issue as the 737 MAX. The 737 MAX had to add MCAS because the engines were mounted extremely forward of the wing due to the 737s lacking ground clearance. A 757 MAX would be more like a A320neo in that the new engines would likely fit on the existing wing, and boeing could also design a new composite 787 style wing to improve efficiency and reduce weight even more.
What engines? The 757 has unique engine requirements, so an engine manufacturer would have to risc of financing several billions into a totally new oddball engine type to power the 757max.
And if they would, it would still be far more expensive that a vanilla A321XLR wich has fleet communality with the most sold aircraft today with same pilot pool, mostly same spareparts and mechanic training.
And it would be in a different class, same aircraft and overfly class as 52m wingspan A/C.
That folding wingtips are more expensive to build and maintain as a a320 that fits in the small gate class that is the most numerous without any of that.
So even if they made it, There are a ton of reasons for airlines not to buy it, as the A3321xlr could do the job FAR cheaper without introducing a new type and Pilot rating in the pool.
Why n eart would Airlines buy the 757 if the A321XLR can do the job a lot cheaper and with magnitudes less problems to introduce it to the fleet? Why? To pay mor efor the same and have more porblems?
It will take Boeing 10 years to develop a 757 replacement.
It maybe too late
The 757 has a superior performance at high altitude airports... so the A321XLR doesn't blow the 757... 757 is also longer than the A321.
757 stopped production already. It's over, done.
@@derkiealfonso2393 what's that got to do with anything I said? 🤔
So you say the 757 makes still sense in 3% of total routes, but otherwise is useless. On all other routes, thenXLR blows the 757 out of the water in the extremely by far most important metric that exists: Cost.
30% less fuel, lower airport fees, parks in the most numerous gares, lower overfly fees, FAR FAR lower maintanance cost thanks to fleet communality with the most sold aircraft series to date, no extra pilot pool spare parts mostly the same with the fleet you already own,
I call making the 757 look like a stuipid choice on 97% of the routes available is blowing out of the water.
And even a 757max would have had the same problems, it would only be better at 3% of the routes, which is not enough to find an engine manufacturer to develop a unique engine only for that one single type at a prospect of beating the most sold series in only 3% of the routes.
That's why boeing didn't even try. It would have been a colossal failure.
BTW Longer: The advantage you want to point out is probably you get more tailstrikes?
The ship has sailed
The good thing about humans greed is that it makes aircrafts more efficiant.
The big question now is will Airbus be able to certify the A321XLR with the integral fuel tank for a range of 4,700 nautical miles? If not and Airbus has to go with a different extra fuel tank design, it could cut the 4ange to only 4,500 nautical miles, which may end up causing a number of cancelations of the order.
757 and 74 are the best ever made.
How so? The 757 is narrower and more cramped than the A320. What is do great about it? For me the B767 is thd best aircraft Boeing has made...great 2-3-2 layout and excellent safety record
Never liked the 757, but thought the 767 was a real workhorse.
Boeing 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787, 797
Is Boeing going to run out of numbers soon ?
“Aircrafts”? You mean “aircraft”. Pretty basic error.
I am not a big fan of the 757. It is one of the main reasons (besides not making enough money) I lost my interest in flying to holiday destinations. But if the aircraft is realy that good. Why did nobody at Boeing bother to start up production again using new engines (kind of 757 NEO). I know a new test program wil be neded. But that has to be quicker and cheaper than producing a new aircraft altogether. Or am I totally wrong here?
The 757 has unique engine requirements. Boeing had to find an engine manufacturer that was willing to develop a whole new engine for just ONE type to recover the cost. And that 1 Type would have been inferior to the vanilla A320 and more expensive than them in 95% of the routes.
P & W engines have a short service life.....
The CFM Leap engine is also an option on the A320neo family.
metrics❓
757 is way better looking than A321s .
Its aircraft. Not aircrafts.
WHAT ARE AIRCRAFTS
Definitely not all airlines are interested in A321XLR
Boeing is getting absolutely SPANKED by Airbus!
Well I can tell you that they have already lost the market and continue to do so they will never again be the number one aircraft marker so congratulations 🎊 to Airbus there are the new kings of the industry Boeing is just not safe enough or can be traded 😮😮😮😮
If you load up the XLR with passengers and bags freight and fuel loads will have to decrease. The XLR is not a 1:1 757 replacement. The 757 can carry fuel freight and passengers. They don’t tell you the amount of passengers for it go that distance.
Who cares? When airlines decide to make flying tolerable again and demand manufacturers to deliver that kind of craft we, all the moo-cows, might pay attention. Want to bet on better efficiency resulting in a reduction in ticket prices and an extra inch of pitch? Not a chance.
The A321XLR is not a good replacement for the 757 because Airbus canabalized cargo space for the extra fuel storage tanks. That means, while the airlines would get better fuel efficiency with the XLR, they would lose out on profitable cargo income. Boeing is hoping the large 737 max 10 will fill that void with more passenger seating and ample cargo space; however, it falls short of the 757 and XLR on range. Only time will tell which strategy is best, but so far, there is not a “real” 757 replacement.
The A321 ceo already replaced the 757 in 90% of the routes it did. The XLR puts down the routes that the 757 only can fly thanks to the performance to 3%.
And no way ever the cargo will earn more than the 30% more fuel the 757 burns and the far higher cost of owning and operating it.- it's cheaper to book cargo on dedicated cargo planes than accepting the far higher 757 cost.
And the payload-range chart of the XLR is better in every way than the 757 one, and the center tank eliminates several ACT.
Sorry but the commentator of this video may know a bit about aviation, but I would suggest going back to school basic English and grammar for training. Let's start with the name of the video. The name "Every Airlines begs for the new Airbuses A321LXR", should be written as "Every AIRLINE begs for the new AIRBUS or AIRBUS' A321LXR". You mentioned AIRCRAFTS several times in the video. The plural form of the noun aircraft is AIRCRAFT and not AIRCRAFTS! This is a common error for speakers that have a Latin-based language as their mother tongue (like Portuguese- Singular Um(1) aeronave, duas(2)aeronaveS). You might want to go back to basic English grammar and brush up on collective nouns and their singular and plural versions.
Lol......
There are aeroplanes either ‘wide body’ or ‘single aisle’, there are NO narrow body aeroplanes …!!!!
Jokes
First
No, Boeing is late to the party.
It is amazing that Boeing kept and ancient flawed designed like the 737 way past its due date while making 0 effort to refresh the 757 in a way that would make it attractive again. The 737 MAX will always be a disgrace in my eyes as it showed the flawed safety and engineering culture in today's Boeing. MCAS2.0 hopefully is a final fix but as we say, you never get to make a second first impression.