Boeing’s Fatal Mistake
10-27-2020, 12:53 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: 1900D CA
Posts: 3,397
Originally Posted by ElCaribe
Boeing announced last week that the “NMA/797/75-replacement” is un-shelved and in talks with airlines. United hasn’t placed firm orders with money down. If a “797” is coming then I’m guessing it’ll be goodbye XLR.
10-27-2020, 01:07 PM
#12
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,573
Originally Posted by Aero1900
I have no doubt that Boeing can design a clean sheet, middle of market airplane that can beat a 321XLR. No question. But, it'll take them a decade. And meanwhile Airbus is selling XLRs already.
It’s been NINE YEARS since Boeing got the KC-46 tanker contract which STARTED with an FAA certified airframe, all the tooling, and a workforce experienced in building it. The wing probe and drogue refueling stations are purchased from a Brit outfit that has already been supplying them. And yet it still has serious mission critical deficiencies including the inability to safely secure pallets, a refueling boom system that sort of sucks, and fuel tanks that leak - occasionally also yielding stray tools, rivets, and Big Mac wrappers.
So can they do a clean sheet design? Almost certainly. In a SINGLE decade? I wouldn’t put money on it.
10-27-2020, 01:09 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: UNA
Posts: 4,429
Originally Posted by Excargodog
THIS^^^
It’s been NINE YEARS since Boeing got the KC-46 tanker contract which STARTED with an FAA certified airframe, all the tooling, and a workforce experienced in building it. The wing probe and drogue refueling stations are purchased from a Brit outfit that has already been supplying them. And yet it still has serious mission critical deficiencies including the inability to safely secure pallets, a refueling boom system that sort of sucks, and fuel tanks that leak - occasionally also yielding stray tools, rivets, and Big Mac wrappers.
So can they do a clean sheet design? Almost certainly. In a SINGLE decade? I wouldn’t put money on it.
It’s been NINE YEARS since Boeing got the KC-46 tanker contract which STARTED with an FAA certified airframe, all the tooling, and a workforce experienced in building it. The wing probe and drogue refueling stations are purchased from a Brit outfit that has already been supplying them. And yet it still has serious mission critical deficiencies including the inability to safely secure pallets, a refueling boom system that sort of sucks, and fuel tanks that leak - occasionally also yielding stray tools, rivets, and Big Mac wrappers.
So can they do a clean sheet design? Almost certainly. In a SINGLE decade? I wouldn’t put money on it.
10-27-2020, 01:14 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2020
Posts: 407
Originally Posted by Excargodog
THIS^^^
It’s been NINE YEARS since Boeing got the KC-46 tanker contract which STARTED with an FAA certified airframe, all the tooling, and a workforce experienced in building it. The wing probe and drogue refueling stations are purchased from a Brit outfit that has already been supplying them. And yet it still has serious mission critical deficiencies including the inability to safely secure pallets, a refueling boom system that sort of sucks, and fuel tanks that leak - occasionally also yielding stray tools, rivets, and Big Mac wrappers.
So can they do a clean sheet design? Almost certainly. In a SINGLE decade? I wouldn’t put money on it.
It’s been NINE YEARS since Boeing got the KC-46 tanker contract which STARTED with an FAA certified airframe, all the tooling, and a workforce experienced in building it. The wing probe and drogue refueling stations are purchased from a Brit outfit that has already been supplying them. And yet it still has serious mission critical deficiencies including the inability to safely secure pallets, a refueling boom system that sort of sucks, and fuel tanks that leak - occasionally also yielding stray tools, rivets, and Big Mac wrappers.
So can they do a clean sheet design? Almost certainly. In a SINGLE decade? I wouldn’t put money on it.
10-27-2020, 01:19 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: UNA
Posts: 4,429
Originally Posted by ElCaribe
The 787 took 5 years. From concept to production. Clean sheet. KC-46 is a completely different situation/set of problems.
10-27-2020, 02:16 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Position: ce560
Posts: 231
If the 321XLR offers the option to install dual truck mains (like the 757) then it will be a must closer competitor. Rumor is a Airbus will offer that as an option in the near future. Some Indian a320 operators already have this option.
10-27-2020, 02:48 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Posts: 505
Originally Posted by singlepilot
If the 321XLR offers the option to install dual truck mains (like the 757) then it will be a must closer competitor. Rumor is a Airbus will offer that as an option in the near future. Some Indian a320 operators already have this option.
10-27-2020, 03:06 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: UNA
Posts: 4,429
Originally Posted by WhiskeyKilo
Pardon my feeble RJ pilot brain, but given no engine/wing performance changes, what does adding a "2nd set" of wheels do for the 321 that move it closer to 57 territory?
240 Sux
10-27-2020, 03:15 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2019
Posts: 144
I'm not an engineer but, I bet that whenever Boeing comes up with a 737/757 replacement Airbus can quite easily engineer a larger wing on the 320 series fuselage and undercut Boeing's new aircraft's price while matching its performances. Not to mention they could probably keep the common type which would further undercut Boeing's position.
10-27-2020, 03:25 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Position: B747 FO
Posts: 610
Originally Posted by ElCaribe
The 787 took 5 years. From concept to production. Clean sheet. KC-46 is a completely different situation/set of problems.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
