I'm not your copilot.Enron had great share prices as well. Who gave you permission to speak?![]()
I'm not your copilot.Enron had great share prices as well. Who gave you permission to speak?![]()
We don't ever agree on anything, but I whole heartily agree with this.
I'm not your copilot.
The A321 cannot perform the mission of the 797. Plus a lot of airlines are actually pushing Boeing for a clean sheet design, and aren't too interested in the 737-10.
The A321LR will cover some 797 missions, and a further stretch + range increase will eat even more into that program. Maybe not 100% of all missions, but it could siphon off sales. This makes the economics of a clean-sheet very difficult for Boeing - it needs to sell enough models to recoup the cost of development and cash build costs. For reference, the 787 still hasn't recouped its development costs and it's really not close. The program just started breaking even on a cash production basis in the last few years. I think this is part of what's taken Boeing so long to launch/offer - the business case is not 100% sound, and there's no engine in the market that could support the program at this time. I think they can and will get there eventually, but it's going to be challenging.
The MAX 10 and 797 serve very different markets, so I don't think there's a whole lot of correlation between airlines asking for 797 and the MAX 10. The MAX 10, as designed right now, would probably eat the 797's lunch head-to-head on a domestic USA route. The MAX 10 was launched to defend against short-haul, domestic A321neo sales, where the MAX 9 was losing in by a clear margin. I also suspect the range of the NMA/797 is not where you expect it to be, but I could be wrong here. My assumption only.
Not yet!
If Boeing sacrifices the 797 for the 737-10, they're stupid IMO.
I'm not your copilot.
I've seen where you came from.....just recently actually.I’m alpha. Don’t make me re-establish alpha because you willl find yourself humiliated and your halls shall reek of my kimchi-scented fecal material.
DO NOT TEST ME, STIGGY!
The A321 cannot perform the mission of the 797. Plus a lot of airlines are actually pushing Boeing for a clean sheet design, and aren't too interested in the 737-10.
And you really think Airbus won't have a A6X-200 (or whatever) ready to go the same time Boeing rolls out a 797?
See, there's where I'm surprised. I thought you liked the Q when you flew it.
When everything was working, it performed OK. But looking back, it was really a hunk of junk.
To be fair the Airbus and Boeing equipment is light years ahead of the commuter stuff in quality. They just don't break and when they do it's typically a fairly easy fix.
I hear @jtrain609 says it's better.This isn't really true. For the CRJ/145, yes probably. For the 175/195/C Series... I'd say the build quality is the same as A/B.
I know it’s extremely anecdotal, but the general feeling in the various airline mechanic groups seems to be Boeing>Aírbüs>Embree-ayer>Canuckjet>>>>>>CRJ200I hear @jtrain609 says it's better.
I know it’s extremely anecdotal, but the general feeling in the various airline mechanic groups seems to be Boeing>Aírbüs>Embree-ayer>Canuckjet>>>>>>CRJ200
Lots of McDoug love out there among the knuckle-dragging greasemonkeys. Especially the structures guys, apparently the reputation they have of being built like a brick poop-house is well deserved.