Boeing pushes for Max10 exemption

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

There was no time for a clean sheet design. That can easily be an 8 year ordeal. Airbus upped the ante with the NEO for the A320 family. Boeing had no choice but to do the same with the 737. A clean slate design would have meant that Boeing would have been out of the fuel efficient domestic narrowbody market for 8 years (a commercial death spell).

I don't blame for making the MAX. I do have a problem with how they did it. The timeline came first, along with no changes to type rating. Those two things set up the disaster for everything that followed. Regardless, the MAX problem is solved. MCAS is a non event now (and come at me, but any pilot should have known to pull back the yoke and run nose up trim if the plane is trying to nose itself into the ground, and eventually figure out that it's the trim running nonstop for 10 full seconds and cut off the switches even prior to 2018).


Throw me in the camp that says let the MAX 10 be certified like the MAX 8 and MAX 9 for crew alerting. The MAX 7/8/9/10 should be grandfathered in.

Now if Boeing was to announce a brand new MAX 11, then yes that should be forced to comply with the new EICAS crew alerting requirements. But designs they announced and planned/made years ago that are basically ready to fly just waiting on paperwork certification? Let them pass.

 

[DropTank]

Place your bets now:

I'm guessing Boeing is going to try for a BWB design for the next large 737 to 767 size aircraft.

 

[knot4u]

Place your bets now:

I'm guessing Boeing is going to try for a BWB design for the next large 737 to 767 size aircraft.

Safe bet. Not a very brave prediction when you consider that a 757 replacement has been what people have been looking for since they stopped building them.

 

[Flyinthrew]

Place your bets now:

I'm guessing Boeing is going to try for a BWB design for the next large 737 to 767 size aircraft.

Baby Wide Body?

Big Winged Bit@&?

 

[DropTank]

Baby Wide Body?

Big Winged Bit@&?

\

Blended Wing Body

Blended wing body - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Guessing an external rotor engine on a single level (passenger), 3 isle layout
90 second evacuation was always the limiting factor as was the composite technology.

Makes no sense to go with any design that beats the 321XLR by a few percent.
Airbus has won the Cheap-To-By(lease)-Profitable-To-Use sector.
Boeing will never compete with a Mini 787 or clean sheet.
Even with a 20% ops savings, they will never make a profit in the allotted time-frame.

BWB has massive potential for an in flight refueler.

Guess they COULD go with an open rotor retro fit to their existing lines, but that's a band aid solution that got them in the situation they are in now and would likely relegate Boeing to mediocrity for the remainder of its existence.
(767/777/787) (737 need not apply)

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

Boeing’s only fresh ideas these days involve stretching the crap out of the guppy and trying to justify their own lack of innovation.

Airbus has surpassed Boeing in that regard. I’m always amazed as a passenger at just how much better the Airbus is. Additionally, I’m pretty sure the 737 flight deck is smaller than the piece of garbage ATR-72s I fly.

How so? How exactly has Airbus surpassed Boeing? Airbus did the same thing Boeing did with the 320. Made an older designed jet snazzier with new engines. Still the same Airbus type rating, they just did it first with the NEO. And Boeing copied as @Cherokee_Cruiser eluded. As for the XLR, they just put more fuel tanks in the jet, no new wing. And it still can't totally do the mission the 757 can in high, hot airfields. The Air Force is actually looking to replace its C-32A's/757. But there is no current airplane that can do the 757's mission from the article that I read.

You said Boeing is fresh out of ideas. That they're just stretching the hell out of the 737. Again Airbus's only new design is the A350. Likewise Boeing with the 787. Honestly, both companies IMO are being less innovative. But goddamn that tray table!

Now, if you're talking about not being a complete sh-t show. Then yeah, Airbus has totally surpassed Boeing in that department. They've totally ceded the middle of the market to Airbus. There's no sign that the NMA will ever jump from paper to reality. That's a lot of money that Boeing's leaving on the table. But as you said in another post.

"Bean counters, gonna bean count."

But what do I know. I'm just a CMEL. But the six pack 172 SP I flew this morning was pretty f-n sweet.

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

Yep. And we keep falling for it. We're season ticket holders this year.

I was really hoping things would get better for the Mariners, when they moved the franchise to Oklahoma.

 

[ASpilot2be]

How so? How exactly has Airbus surpassed Boeing? Airbus did the same thing Boeing did with the 320. Made an older designed jet snazzier with new engines. Still the same Airbus type rating, they just did it first with the NEO. And Boeing copied as @Cherokee_Cruiser eluded. As for the XLR, they just put more fuel tanks in the jet, no new wing. And it still can't totally do the mission the 757 can in high, hot airfields. The Air Force is actually looking to replace its C-32A's/757. But there is no current airplane that can do the 757's mission from the article that I read.

You said Boeing is fresh out of ideas. That they're just stretching the hell out of the 737. Again Airbus's only new design is the A350. Likewise Boeing with the 787. Honestly, both companies IMO are being less innovative. But goddamn that tray table!

Now, if you're talking about not being a complete sh-t show. Then yeah, Airbus has totally surpassed Boeing in that department. They've totally ceded the middle of the market to Airbus. There's no sign that the NMA will ever jump from paper to reality. That's a lot of money that Boeing's leaving on the table. But as you said in another post.

"Bean counters, gonna bean count."

But what do I know. I'm just a CMEL. But the six pack 172 SP I flew this morning was pretty f-n sweet.

They did not do the same thing as Boeing. Yes they put new engines on, but they didn't stretch the ever lasting crap out of the 320. And the 321Neo has improvements over the 321. They changed something to give slower approach speeds.

 

[DropTank]

How so? How exactly has Airbus surpassed Boeing? Airbus did the same thing Boeing did with the 320. Made an older designed jet snazzier with new engines. Still the same Airbus type rating, they just did it first with the NEO. And Boeing copied as @Cherokee_Cruiser eluded. As for the XLR, they just put more fuel tanks in the jet, no new wing. And it still can't totally do the mission the 757 can in high, hot airfields. The Air Force is actually looking to replace its C-32A's/757. But there is no current airplane that can do the 757's mission from the article that I read.

You said Boeing is fresh out of ideas. That they're just stretching the hell out of the 737. Again Airbus's only new design is the A350. Likewise Boeing with the 787. Honestly, both companies IMO are being less innovative. But goddamn that tray table!

Now, if you're talking about not being a complete sh-t show. Then yeah, Airbus has totally surpassed Boeing in that department. They've totally ceded the middle of the market to Airbus. There's no sign that the NMA will ever jump from paper to reality. That's a lot of money that Boeing's leaving on the table. But as you said in another post.

"Bean counters, gonna bean count."

But what do I know. I'm just a CMEL. But the six pack 172 SP I flew this morning was pretty f-n sweet.

Let's set standards here.
It's not making the "better" plane but making the most profitable airplane that is available now.
The A32X series is not a great airplane, but you can make money with one.

The XLR is a 99% 757 replacement. Which is VERY profitable and a niche that Boeing cannot match, period.
As for 'hot and high' performance, that might make 10 airframes and not even a blip on the radar.
And even that can be solved with engine upgrades and possible flap/slat mods (though still not likely profitable)

Then add the 737 collapse and handed Airbus the most profitable sector of the civilian transport market

 

[form810]

Annnnd discuss...if you want to

www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/news/21270180/as-boeing-pushes-for-exemption-for-max-10-report-to-faa-critiques-737-crewalerting-system

Anybody else feeling like Boeing is just Apple with airplanes? 7,8,9,10...13... MAX! Hey, you dudes are soooo innovative! You can count... and spell three letter words!

Meanwhile, Bombardier has it all wrong, recently introducing the REV Gen5 platform in their snowmachine line. If they had just gone with the innovators, they'd easily be at the 23 Ski-Doo model by now.

 

[form810]

Let's set standards here.
It's not making the "better" plane but making the most profitable airplane that is available now.
The A32X series is not a great airplane, but you can make money with one.

Well, acschuuully... "setting standards" is pretty much antithetical to "a race to the bottom".

 

[DropTank]

Well, acschuuully... "setting standards" is pretty much antithetical to "a race to the bottom".

No, no it is not.

This isn't 4chan.

 

[///AMG]

Safe bet. Not a very brave prediction when you consider that a 757 replacement has been what people have been looking for since they stopped building them.

It is pretty wild to me that this didn't ever happen. Re-engine, modernize, and it is easy billions. This is why we can't have nice things. If they had put the effort into a 757X that they have the 777X (or MAX for that matter), they would be laughing all the way to the bank to collect their prize. 777X, does it even have a market that will provide ROI?? That thing has cost the company a lot of money.

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

They did not do the same thing as Boeing. Yes they put new engines on, but they didn't stretch the ever lasting crap out of the 320. And the 321Neo has improvements over the 321. They changed something to give slower approach speeds.

How would you know?

 

[ASpilot2be]

How would you know?

By looking in the manual.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

To me, the difference between landing an A320 vs the 321NEO was more significant than landing a 737-800, 900ER, or MAX 9. More or less, these Boeing variants feel the same to me for landing.

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

By looking in the manual.

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.

 

[ChasenSFO]

There was no time for a clean sheet design. That can easily be an 8 year ordeal. Airbus upped the ante with the NEO for the A320 family. Boeing had no choice but to do the same with the 737. A clean slate design would have meant that Boeing would have been out of the fuel efficient domestic narrowbody market for 8 years (a commercial death spell).

I know that you know what "NEO" stands for. New-Engine-Order. That is it. Airbus changed the engines.

Boeing took an early 60s design and made a bunch of Frankenstein crap to convert the old airframe so as to make it able to house big ass (you can totally say "ass" on here) engines when it rides low to the ground. And 2 planes crashed and a lot of people died because Boeing decided to keep some of the details about how they did it and what problems they came across from the public to hold onto a promise that no additional simulator training was required for NG pilots. It is not the same thing.

With fuel efficiency comes, what? Being able to fit more people, with less money spent, and thus being able to use a bigger plane on lower-yielding routes. That is why Frontier decided the A318s were best used as spare parts to keep the A319s flying when they were still basically new-ish, and then decided to let all the A319s go and put A320NEOs on all their routes. More seats became practical.

I think if Boeing really wanted to compete, as in for the long run, they would have gone further with their ideas of re-engining the 757 as a stop-gap solution. Both performance-wise and capacity-wise, that aircraft would compete head-to-head with the A321NEO while requiring a lot less work than re-building the 737-800/900 fuselages into a funky carbon fiber design. Sure, it is larger than the A320, but if it is efficient enough, it doesn't really matter. A320s and 757-200Ws can share the vast majority of gates across the world (Both "ADGIII; Aircraft Design Group 3 so they need the same wingtip clearance that standard gates are built for. Only custom-sized smaller than average gates made for A321 and smaller wouldn't fit). That would have been a good stop-gap solution because the only way to really compete with late 80s technology that is still kicking your ass is a clean-sheet design, maybe with 787 cockpit commonality to TRULY compete with Airbus in the short to ultra-long-range commonality market. Not saying this would be the ultimate best choice, but competing in the long run meant a stop-gap solution backed by a future flagship design.

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.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I know that you know what "NEO" stands for. New-Engine-Order. That is it. Airbus changed the engines.

Boeing took an early 60s design and made a bunch of Frankenstein crap to convert the old airframe so as to make it able to house big ass (you can totally say "ass" on here) engines when it rides low to the ground. And 2 planes crashed and a lot of people died because Boeing decided to keep some of the details about how they did it and what problems they came across from the public to hold onto a promise that no additional simulator training was required for NG pilots. It is not the same thing.

With fuel efficiency comes, what? Being able to fit more people, with less money spent, and thus being able to use a bigger plane on lower-yielding routes. That is why Frontier decided the A318s were best used as spare parts to keep the A319s flying when they were still basically new-ish, and then decided to let all the A319s go and put A320NEOs on all their routes. More seats became practical.

I think if Boeing really wanted to compete, as in for the long run, they would have gone further with their ideas of re-engining the 757 as a stop-gap solution. Both performance-wise and capacity-wise, that aircraft would compete head-to-head with the A321NEO while requiring a lot less work than re-building the 737-800/900 fuselages into a funky carbon fiber design. Sure, it is larger than the A320, but if it is efficient enough, it doesn't really matter. A320s and 757-200Ws can share the vast majority of gates across the world (Both "ADGIII; Aircraft Design Group 3 so they need the same wingtip clearance that standard gates are built for. Only custom-sized smaller than average gates made for A321 and smaller wouldn't fit). That would have been a good stop-gap solution because the only way to really compete with late 80s technology that is still kicking your ass is a clean-sheet design, maybe with 787 cockpit commonality to TRULY compete with Airbus in the short to ultra-long-range commonality market. Not saying this would be the ultimate best choice, but competing in the long run meant a stop-gap solution backed by a future flagship design.

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.

They would have been just fine, just as they were fine after the two fatal 737 rudder hardover accidents. The 737 went on to be a successful program, and so will the MAX.

The whole MCAS was for stick force G requirement at high AOA. Most guys would have never come close to that regime. The MAX flies just fine. I’m not happy with how they designed MCAS and how no one figured a failure mode of an erroneous AOA could run MCAS forever until the pilots cutout the stab trim cutout switches. But then again, Boeing forgot they are ALSO selling planes operated by 250 hr FOs and 29 and 31 yr old CAs.

Yes, Airbus re-engined the A320 family and called it a NEO. Boeing did the same. True, Boeing had to do a whole lot more engineering to fit bigger engines on the plane. It has other stuff behind the scenes that I never see or even feel, but the magic happens. Like LAM when at flaps 30 or 40 for landing. I don’t feel it.


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.

 

[ChasenSFO]

They would have been just fine, just as they were fine after the two fatal 737 rudder hardover accidents. The 737 went on to be a successful program, and so will the MAX.

The whole MCAS was for stick force G requirement at high AOA. Most guys would have never come close to that regime. The MAX flies just fine. I’m not happy with how they designed MCAS and how no one figured a failure mode of an erroneous AOA could run MCAS forever until the pilots cutout the stab trim cutout switches. But then again, Boeing forgot they are ALSO selling planes operated by 250 hr FOs and 29 and 31 yr old CAs.

Yes, Airbus re-engined the A320 family and called it a NEO. Boeing did the same. True, Boeing had to do a whole lot more engineering to fit bigger engines on the plane. It has other stuff behind the scenes that I never see or even feel, but the magic happens. Like LAM when at flaps 30 or 40 for landing. I don’t feel it.


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.

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.