Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Safety
Boeing Concerned about 321XLR Safety >

Boeing Concerned about 321XLR Safety

Notices
Safety Accidents, suggestions on improving safety, etc

Boeing Concerned about 321XLR Safety

Old 03-02-2021, 02:50 PM
  #1  
Prime Minister/Moderator
Thread Starter
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,097
Default Boeing Concerned about 321XLR Safety

Their concern about fuel tanks seems a legit discussion item to me, but this kind of theoretically constructive industry commentary doesn't usually make the news.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKCN2AU2RJ
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 03-02-2021, 05:20 PM
  #2  
Perennial Reserve
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,409
Default







Were I of a suspicious nature, I might view this as attempting to scuttle a rival.....
Excargodog is online now  
Old 03-02-2021, 05:49 PM
  #3  
Gets Everyday Off
 
TransWorld's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,880
Default

Could have told them to do this a decade ago. Between the 737 and the 787.
TransWorld is offline  
Old 03-02-2021, 06:34 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2019
Posts: 391
Default

This is more Boeing business chicanery. It’s kinda their thing.
flyinthrew is offline  
Old 03-03-2021, 04:01 AM
  #5  
777 - ret
 
Huell's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2020
Position: Waco CG-4 center seat
Posts: 863
Default

You would think McDonald-Douglas was running the company.
Huell is offline  
Old 03-03-2021, 06:21 AM
  #6  
Prime Minister/Moderator
Thread Starter
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,097
Default

A purpose-built mid-size plane would have to be more efficient than a stretch 321. If only they can build one before the XLR consumes all of the market niche...
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 03-03-2021, 06:44 AM
  #7  
Gets Everyday Off
 
TransWorld's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,880
Default

Originally Posted by Huell View Post
You would think McDonald-Douglas was running the company.
James S. McDonnell and Donald W. Douglas see what you did. And no hyphen in McDonnell Douglas, as well.
TransWorld is offline  
Old 03-03-2021, 07:30 AM
  #8  
Perennial Reserve
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,409
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
A purpose-built mid-size plane would have to be more efficient than a stretch 321. If only they can build one before the XLR consumes all of the market niche...
Aerodynamically more efficient? Possibly. Economically more efficient when you consider the existing A320 family worldwide logistics and training infrastructure? Far less likely.

No, it was Boeing who tried to stretch an existing aircraft a model too far with the MAX. They should have had a 757 follow-on waiting in the wings a decade ago. Now they are trapped in lag for at least a few years, more likely a decade.
Excargodog is online now  
Old 03-03-2021, 08:13 AM
  #9  
Prime Minister/Moderator
Thread Starter
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,097
Default

Originally Posted by Excargodog View Post
Aerodynamically more efficient? Possibly. Economically more efficient when you consider the existing A320 family worldwide logistics and training infrastructure? Far less likely.
Fuel burn is going to be the metric that punches well above its weight, if current green trends play out. Either due to a need to reduce burn/emissions, the high cost of SAF, or both. Also while the bus is newer than the guppy, it's still 40 years old. A clean-slate design could have enough baked-in economic advantages IMO.

Boeing has a well established support network.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 03-03-2021, 09:26 AM
  #10  
Perennial Reserve
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,409
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post

Boeing has a well established support network.
But it doesn’t have sims, parts, or type-certified pilots for the -5x, or even a flying prototype. And with the FAA under scrutiny for giving them too much license to self-certify on the MAX, they are not going to get any of that for a considerable time by which - as you mentioned - the niche will largely have been filled.

And SAF is still buying indulgences from the church of the envirowackoes. It makes more sense to continue to pump Jet-A and offset it by producing non-carbon power on the ground, through geothermal, hydroelectric (rare and inconsequential minnows be damned), and nuclear until we can get working fusion power plants. That’s still buying indulgences, but at least you are buying them at a cheaper rate.
Excargodog is online now  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Guard Dude
Delta
201720
04-06-2022 06:59 AM
docav8tor
Major
7
11-20-2020 09:41 PM
docav8tor
Safety
4
09-26-2019 12:50 PM
MacMan
Cargo
13
02-02-2013 09:45 PM
vagabond
Safety
0
06-14-2012 03:24 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices