Its 2011 - that doesn't make any sense from a globalization standpoint.

Europe is FAR more likely to see labor disruptions that would "shut down the line" than the US at this point. Besides, Boeing just announced a second 737 line where they can produce something like 50 737s a year...so getting airplanes isn't a problem. If anything, being tail-end charlie on a bunch of NEO orders would put fleet replacement further back.

AA is using Airbus to whipsaw Boeing into announcing a new 737 re-engine/replacement aircraft - just like SWA is with talk about the C-Series. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't think Boeing has gotten complacent in the narrowbody market, but rather is trying to get their hands on the 787 outsourcing disaster and remedy it completely before throwing billions into developing a replacement for their biggest selling aircraft.

 

AS long as AA buys a 100-seat aircraft and mainline pilots fly it, as opposed to Eagle, it diesn't matter whether its Airbus 318s or B-717s or C-Series.

 

BS. If management is "chomping at the bit" to get a contract they sure have a funny way of showing it. Even after this weak union leadership took most issues off the table, they've only made a small amount of progress and haven't even broached pay or scope. Scheduling is a long way from agreement as well.

I do not expect even a first TA this year.

Stop believing all the planted rumors and feel-good BS being planted by the VP of flight. That guy shot every bit of his credibility last winter with the same bull.

 

I thought the B737-800s are replacing the MD80s

 

This thread appears to be more dealing with the question of "why Airbus" more than a scope debate.

Boeing is getting their clock cleaned. Airbus picked up 900+ orders which effectively sells them out through 2018-2019. Boeing's 142 not only sounds bad in comparison, it sounds worse when compared with the 130 ATR's sold!

The big lessors are telling Boeing they need a new airplane. Something like this:

 

with the loads these days, you'd think somebody would get the message that 50 seat RJ's are dead.... time to go back to the 737/A320's that should have originally been flying those routes...

 

even though they are money losers, there's simply too much leverage to be given up by mgmts across the land if they were to get rid of 50 seaters.

 

Fair enough. Both companies have their strengths and weaknesses. That said the A321 (NEO or not) and the B739 will never, ever be a B757 replacement. EVER!! I see DL/AA/UA (really CO) in Europe all the time with their 757-200s. The best the A321 NEO could hope for is a Transcon US flight year-round.

IMO, Boeing has done with the B737 what Bombardier has done with the CRJ- they've over-stretched.

I see a heavy 737-900 going down the runway and I think of an overweight duck waddling over a waterfall desperately trying to get airborne (it's worse than a heavy A-340 and that's pretty bad). I just wish they'd put half as much effort into further improving the 757 as they'd put into the 737. I am sure we'd have a winner on our hands.

I agree that Airbus has done well the commonality; it's genius, actually. I've jump-seated on a few 737-NGs and I always look up at the overhead panel and say whiskey tango fox. Additionally, (in my mind) I can still see the round dials behind the LCDs.

Arguably, Boeing made a good business decision at the time, pleasing WN. However, it's caused them to fall behind here in the present.

 

I seem to recall those who actually have flown the 321 saying it was grossly underwinged...something new engines and sharklets really won't address.

As for Airbus commonality for single-aisle aircraft...didn't eliminating the 757 from production take Boeing to the exact same place?

 

Recent article about an a/c mentioned how winglets had changed the effective aspect ratio from 7.x to 9.x. so winglets do help increase the wing's effectiveness.

Given AB's track record it still won't be enough wing.