He makes a valid point. The 777 has largely been a success story from the beginning....which was in 1994. The 777-300ER was a successful growth of that record.

I was surprised by the developmental difficulties Boeing had with the 747-8, and 767 Tankers. Both had significant buffet and minor flutter problems...and they were just changes to mature designs. Neither one of these airplanes will crack 200 sales.

The 787 pushed some boundaries, and is now making successful inroads...but efforts to be cheap backfired.

By most accounts, the stretch 737s have taken the concept too far, with too many design compromises. (Ie, approach speeds/tail strikes).

Yes, the freight market is nearly all Boeing, and mostly 767s, 777s, and 747-400s....in other words, airplanes designed in the 1970s or 80s.

The only successful NEW airplane in the last ten years got off to a poor start.

And their best-seller is a 50-year-old design, with a cockpit frame that is 64 years old (Dash-80).

And what exactly has Airbus done again?

Create an oversized money-losing bastage known as the A380, re-engine the 320-321/330, and follow Boeing with the A350 (right down to lengthy delivery delays)?

Nothing much revolutionary there, either...

Touche (pun intended).;)

For me, the observation at Boeing was the revolutionary stuff was mostly 25 years ago.

Could it be those guys are all retired?

My personal belief is there has been a huge paradigmal shift in engineers over the last 30 years. I was a paper, drafting board, calculator engineer, with a lot of time tearing apart greasy things, such as engines, brakes, pumps, toaster, VCRs...

Sometimes I could even put it back together again.

Today, college engineering is largely CAD/CAM, and I have met VERY few high school kids who can even change the oil in a car.

Does it matter? Maybe not.

But I suspect "nuts and bolts" engineering creates an awareness that "virtual drafting" can never replace.

As for Airbus: agreed that the 380 is a technical triumph, but financial failure.

I think the 321NEO will be a success in the same way as the 777-300.

The 350 is too early to tell, but I think it will be almost as successful as the 787. Market 60% 787; 40% 350.

767-300 2 class seats 30/184

787-8 2 class seats 36/183

5 seats different. Its the same size. :confused:

But yes its a different airplane its a 787 and the other one is a 767 :D

What does that have to do with the size of the aircraft?

Ehhh...no.

The difference is that it is harder and harder to push the technology barrier beyond what we have without a revolutionary discovery such as a new material.

But mostly FAA certification is so onerous that it is just too unfeasible to produce a new design than to warm over an old one.

Different size business seats. Single class the 787-8 is 359. 767-300 is 290. The 787 is significantly bigger.

Empty weight. 767-300 198k
787-8 260k

I was never speaking about physical size. At the end of the day seating capacity is what matters.

In UNITED's seating layout the 787-8 is the same size as the 767-300.

Obviously the 747 is physically bigger than the 777-300 but in UNITED's seating layout they are the same size.

So what's you're saying is that its not how big your plane is, its how you fly it that counts.

So according to your way of thinking the 777 A domestic is "bigger" than the 777 A int'l configuration? Even though they're exactly the same airplane?