Boeing pushes for Max10 exemption

ChasenSFO said:
Ok. I don't see what any of this has to do with my post about what Boeing would have done if they were serious about leveling long-term competition. I mentioned the 757 because Boeing was legitimately exploring using the 757NEO as a stop-gap solution for the MOM (Middle of Market aka medium-capacity medium-haul) plane of the future to be developed and built. And I think that was the right move, or at least the right idea if they were to seriously compete for the next few decades.

What did any of your post have to do with that? And no, Boeing did not "do the same", the 737MAX8 is not a 737-800 with new engines, they redesigned the tail, fuselage, avionics, etc. It is not the same thing man. And if COVID hadn't happened, the MAX grounding would have entirely occurred during a historic uptick in air travel. Yes, the airlines would have been livid and suing up the ying-yang for lost revenue.
Click to expand...

Sorry I couldn’t satisfy you.


¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Maximilian_Jenius said:
I'll agree that Boeing stretched the 737 way past it's intended design. As for improvements, Boeing made all of its major improvements to the 737, as the NG model, not the MAX. The new wing gave them more range and it could fly higher, faster than the classic 737's. So I've read. The 737 300/400/500 (so I've read and been told) couldn't do the 3-4 hr transcons that the NG's and MAX's do. And they couldn't 410 it like the NG's/MAX's can under the right conditions. @tcco94 calls me a fanboy. But having flown neither upfront, I actually like the 320 series better. I was never really a big 737 fan. Growing up it was always the 727, 757 & 767's that I liked. Later the 787 & 777.

Anyways I appreciate the education and not a rebuke. Telling me to stick to the CFI corner section.
Click to expand...
Fanboy
 
ChasenSFO said:
What they did instead was some knee-jerk bandage-type crap that blew up in their faces. If COVID didn't happen, imagine the mess they'd be in.
Click to expand...

Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I don’t get the 757 love fest. Boeing killed it and that story is done. True, I think it would have been excellent if they had explored a new engine option or a 757X. But that’s old and done and here we are today.
Click to expand...

One factor I didn’t fully appreciate until getting into aerospace engineering was the cost of “production tooling”. Contrary to the name this isn’t wrenches and screwdrivers, it’s massive scaffolding and steel beam Assembly Jigs - the biggest ones being Final Assembly Jigs or “FAJs” which hold all the individual parts of an assembly together while they’re drilled and fastened. These FAJs have to be extremely stiff and strong because the dimensional tolerance requirements are often extremely tight, on the order of thousandths of an inch (that’s 0.001”). As a result you get assembly tooling that looks like this (yellow is the wing, silver is the final assembly jig tooling):

1655579570096.jpeg


Another example from the 787 line. Everything in blue is an assembly jig:

1655579916783.jpeg


Elon Musk has a quote I really like, “Designing the rocket is easy, designing the rocket factory is hard.” This stuff represents an astronomical up front cost to design and produce to create an assembly line. Rewind to 2004, as the “lost decade” was ramping up and Boeing cancelled the 757 program and threw away all their production tooling. No doubt this was some beancounter thing wanting to make floor space in Everett for something else, not wanting to pay rent on some warehouse to store it all, etc, but in my opinion it was terribly short sighted.

By scrapping the production tooling they abandoned their capability to ever produce another 757 without starting from scratch, and put all their eggs in the 737 basket. Any future request for a modified or updated 757 would have to result in essentially standing up a new program and that aforementioned astronomical cost in manufacturing tooling development.

To use a Hollywood analogy, Boeing is playing it safe by sticking to making sequels and comic book movies. They could take a risk and do something brand new and innovative but the up front cost and uncertainty of return on investment is antithetical to their model of making the most profit for their shareholders. I personally think this is foolish though, as you can’t keep stretching an airplane forever and eventually no amount of bandaids will be enough to let you get away with it. And the modify and bandaid approach vs designing the right airplane for the mission will always result in a crappier product, but the bet they’re making is whether the crappier airplane is still “good enough.”
 
Last edited:
At least Boeing hasn’t made commercial failures like Airbus did. Namely, the A340. “4 Engines 4 Longhaul”

And to a large degree, the A380 too.

Every Boeing model so far has sold very well and done very well. The Boeing 717 is an exception, but then again that’s the MD-95.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
At least Boeing hasn’t made commercial failures like Airbus did. Namely, the A340. “4 Engines 4 Longhaul”

And to a large degree, the A380 too.

Every Boeing model so far has sold very well and done very well. The Boeing 717 is an exception, but then again that’s the MD-95.
Click to expand...
Don't be so sure. A350 looks to be up there too.
 
inigo88 said:
One factor I didn’t fully appreciate until getting into aerospace engineering was the cost of “production tooling”. Contrary to the name this isn’t wrenches and screwdrivers, it’s massive scaffolding and steel beam Assembly Jigs - the biggest ones being Final Assembly Jigs or “FAJs” which hold all the individual parts of an assembly together while they’re drilled and fastened. These FAJs have to be extremely stiff and strong because the dimensional tolerance requirements are often extremely tight, on the order of thousandths of an inch (that’s 0.001”). As a result you get assembly tooling that looks like this (yellow is the wing, silver is the final assembly jig tooling):

View attachment 65349

Another example from the 787 line. Everything in blue is an assembly jig:

View attachment 65350

Elon Musk has a quote I really like, “Designing the rocket is easy, designing the rocket factory is hard.” This stuff represents an astronomical up front cost to design and produce to create an assembly line. Rewind to 2004, as the “lost decade” was ramping up and Boeing cancelled the 757 program and threw away all their production tooling. No doubt this was some beancounter thing wanting to make floor space in Everett for something else, not wanting to pay rent on some warehouse to store it all, etc, but in my opinion it was terribly short sighted.

By scrapping the production tooling they abandoned their capability to ever produce another 757 without starting from scratch, and put all their eggs in the 737 basket. Any future request for a modified or updated 757 would have to result in essentially standing up a new program and that aforementioned astronomical cost in manufacturing tooling development.

To use a Hollywood analogy, Boeing is playing it safe by sticking to making sequels and comic book movies. They could take a risk and do something brand new and innovative but the up front cost and uncertainty of return on investment is antithetical to their model of making the most profit for their shareholders. I personally think this is foolish though, as you can’t keep stretching an airplane forever and eventually no amount of bandaids will be enough to let you get away with it. And the modify and bandaid approach vs designing the right airplane for the mission will always result in a crappier product, but the bet they’re making is whether the crappier airplane is still “good enough.”
Click to expand...

I met a...fairly senior...Boeing guy a couple weeks ago. There were drinks involved. We talked about the destruction of the tooling and why, in retrospect, that may have been the biggest mistake Boeing ever made.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
At least Boeing hasn’t made commercial failures like Airbus did. Namely, the A340. “4 Engines 4 Longhaul”
Click to expand...
The A340 was a hedge against Pratt and Rolls getting their • together. You may notice that the A330 and A340 look a lot alike and have gobs of commonality.

That is because the PW4000 100-inch and the Trent 700 weren't certified (for whatever reasons -- maybe relative performance? -- there has never been much interest in the warmed-over CF6 engine option). This was also a time when ETOPS was not the norm. So, they built an A330 with four A320 engines, which would not be subject to any external delays or route restrictions. Then the marketing people got their hands on it.

To my knowledge, the "4 Long Haul" thing didn't come up until the A340-500/-600 as a marketing response to the 777's success. And yeah, I suspect that program only about broke-even for its relatively low development cost.
 
Minuteman said:
The A340 was a hedge against Pratt and Rolls getting their • together. You may notice that the A330 and A340 look a lot alike and have gobs of commonality.

That is because the PW4000 100-inch and the Trent 700 weren't certified (for whatever reasons -- maybe relative performance? -- there has never been much interest in the warmed-over CF6 engine option). This was also a time when ETOPS was not the norm. So, they built an A330 with four A320 engines, which would not be subject to any external delays or route restrictions. Then the marketing people got their hands on it.

To my knowledge, the "4 Long Haul" thing didn't come up until the A340-500/-600 as a marketing response to the 777's success. And yeah, I suspect that program only about broke-even for its relatively low development cost.
Click to expand...
I don't think Airbus ever broke even on the A380.
 
knot4u said:
The 757 is the most handsome single aisle airliner ever built, and in the context of its time it had the performance to back up its good looks and ramp presence.
Click to expand...

Was just sitting in the A gate area of seatac watching planes after doing a trial run of my KCM badge (yeah I'm a dork). Beautiful SJI 757 taxied by. You just can't argue with that profile.....I'm not really into airliners, but that thing is hawt.\

Immediately following it out of the alley was a UAL A319. Which is basically the airplane version of a fart.
 
///AMG said:
Was just sitting in the A gate area of seatac watching planes after doing a trial run of my KCM badge (yeah I'm a dork). Beautiful SJI 757 taxied by. You just can't argue with that profile.....I'm not really into airliners, but that thing is hawt.\

Immediately following it out of the alley was a UAL A319. Which is basically the airplane version of a fart.
Click to expand...
I've always said the 757 kind of reminds me of Mike Tyson back in the day, not the biggest out there but certainly appeared to be the most purposeful.
 
knot4u said:
I've always said the 757 kind of reminds me of Mike Tyson back in the day, not the biggest out there but certainly appeared to be the most purposeful.
Click to expand...

Yep, it is a go getter. Suited for almost any sort of flying, provided you don't need to carry 300+ pax overseas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top