They had been working on a 797 concept small two aisle fo fill the 757ish size void around a decade ago, but eventually discontinued it.
Too bad.
Used to be a big believer in Boeing having flown a few different models.

 

None, but that's irrelevant.

None is the answer, regardless of the manufacturer, or the aircraft model. It is, however, the wrong question.

The question is whether Boeing will fall as a result of this error. The answer is no, they won't.

Or over cost overruns on the modified 767 cum KC46.

Or parachute softlinks and wiring shielding in the Starliner capsule.

Also irrelevant. It doesn't matter what they secure; improper maintenance, manufacture, or installation is unairworthy, not legal or safe, and wrong, and beyond contestation (nor is anyone attempting to contest it and say it's right). Not in doubt, not in question, but also irrelevant.

Still doesn't mean Boeing will be going out of business soon. Too big to fail. Too diverse. The Max grounding following Lion and Ethopian didn't do it. A door plug won't either. A soft link won't either. KC46 delays won't, either (and they're moving forward again).

Boeing is too diverse and has fingers in too many pies, and making a comparison with aircraft sales vs. Airbus in an attempt to show airbus ahead...is wrong, using the wrong metrics, when Boeing has double the sales.

Stop the 737 line and go clean sheet? When sales are well in excess of their competitors and are wildly successful? No.

 

Not any airline's burden. It needs to be all Boeing to make and market to the airlines. GM/Ford/Audi, etc. builds to the market; they don't call you and ask what you want for your order.

Boeing needs to roll out new and wow the airlines.

It won't happen though.

 

They didn't discontinue it, they shelved it because of the resistance to single pilot. They publicly stated that the reasons were waiting for better engines and materials to appear but it was clear they shelved it after the Max crashes showed the world that pilots were still important. Expect it to come back once that resistance dies down.

 

It's absolutely the airlines burden. The airlines are the ones paying. The burden is the payment. Boeing designs, the airline pays. The burden, which is the cost, is on the custome. This is true of all industries in all places at all times.

If the customer doesn't want to pay, there's nthing to develop and sell.

 

Uh, first off, the airlines (and thus the passengers) are the ones paying the cost. Not only the cost to design and certify, but also the cost to train flight crew and mechanics in a new type.

Secondly yeah, the manufacturers do actually ask the airlines what they need. They are not building hundreds of thousands or millions of planes like auto manufactuerers build cars. They are, at best, building a few thousand aircraft. The manufacturers build what the airlines want, and airlines don't want expensive jets that come with a lot higher costs.

 

This is accurate, the big airframers very much coordinate with customers to find out exacly what they need and want, then they try to design a plane which covers as many bases, to the greatest extent practical, for as many current and likely future customers as possible.

The very existence of the Max is testament to this... SWA said they'd buy many, many hundreds of them if it was common type with the NG. If Boeing did a clean-slate NB, it's widely understood that SWA would have considered airbus as an option since they would be forced into two fleets anyway.

There have been a very few cases where the manufacturers led from the front, driven by some vision of future opportunity and a desire to be first to market. Notably the A380, which was also a bit of a Euro d!ck measuring evolution vs. the 747. We know how that turned out, Billions $ down the drain.

 

https://qz.com/boeing-737-max-aviati...ety-1851208891

 

The article has a truth problem, and little credibility as a result, but while Duckworth's comments are pure drama sky-is-falling bull ****, Boeings effort to address a nacelle overheat is likewise problematic: Boeing's intended exemption was to simply put a limitation in the flight manual requiring pilots to shut off nacelle heat after five minutes (in icing conditions). After it becamse a public issue, Boeing elected to fall back to engineer a solution.

The article's comment regarding the Ethiopan max loss is wrong, as it the assertion that the recent plug loss was a "door" that "fell off." Further, the Alaska plug loss was not a case of "the fuselage broke." It's hard to take reporting seriously when it's that flawed.

 

We all know that politicians are idiots and misinformed, none of which changes:
1. The perceptions of the flying public who are often just as ill-informed as the politicians.
2. The FACT that Boeing, now having recanted their request for exemption, is now STILL going to be missing their already long-delayed promised certification of the MAX 7 for another nine months and likely closer to a year and a half.