This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, but Boeing doesn’t have plans to introduce any new kinds of jets in the next decade.
In this post:
Basics of the rumored Boeing New Midsize Airplane (NMA)
Airbus and Boeing are always trying to compete with one another on aircraft types. Not only do we see incremental improvements to existing aircraft models (737 MAX, A321neo, etc.), but every so often we see completely new concepts introduced (A220, 787, etc.).
Boeing has a significant capacity and range gap in its current lineup of passengers jets, as the airline isn’t producing anything between a Boeing 737 and a Boeing 787. Back in 2015, Boeing decided there was enough room in the market to work on a completely new design. This has been referred to as Boeing’s New Midsize Airplane (NMA) concept, or even as the Boeing 797.
The general thought has been that this new concept would fill one of two voids for Boeing:
- A plane that’s a replacement for the Boeing 767, with two aisles, seven seats per row, and a capacity of 225-275 passengers
- A plane that can compete with the new Airbus A321XLR, which is the longest range narrow body jet; while the A321neo and Boeing 737 MAX lines are generally competitive, Airbus has the significant advantage when it comes to the range of some variants
Boeing never really publicly promised anything in particular with this concept, but we know that the company was working on this for years. The whole project ended up getting pushed to the side a bit, between the Boeing 737 MAX being grounded globally, the pandemic, issues with the Boeing 777X getting certified, etc.
So, what’s the latest with Boeing’s NMA concept?
Why Boeing is no longer working on a New Midsize Airplane
This week, Boeing CEO David Calhoun formally put to rest any rumors that Boeing might be working on a new aircraft design. Why?
- There aren’t currently any new propulsion systems that would deliver incremental efficiencies that would make this concept viable
- If Boeing does introduce a totally new aircraft concept, the company wants it to be a groundbreaking plane, rather than to just have incremental improvements
- Boeing is focusing on making incremental improvements to existing planes, which have been successful, and make the planes more appealing; for example, we’ve seen range and maximum takeoff weight improvements with Boeing’s newer jets, which improve economics
So, when should we expect Boeing to come up with a totally new aircraft type? Calhoun suggests it might be somewhere around the middle of the next decade, so let’s call it 2035:
“There’ll be a moment in time where we’ll pull the rabbit out of the hat and introduce a new airplane sometime in the middle of the next decade.”
Admittedly I don’t think there are any firm plans there, so only time will tell how this plays out.
I can’t blame Boeing for this
I’m not surprised to see Boeing not prioritizing another aircraft type right now:
- Designing a new aircraft from scratch is incredibly costly, and takes a very long time
- Keep in mind Boeing started working on the 777X concept in 2013, and that’s just an update to the existing Boeing 777; that’s now expected to enter service in 2025 at the earliest, so that’s a minimum of a 12 year process
- Boeing is continuing to lose billions of dollars, so it seems like it’s more logical to continue working on incremental improvements to existing jets, rather than starting from scratch
- At this point Airbus is at a significant long-term advantage compared to Boeing in terms of its product lineup; the company has the A220 (Boeing doesn’t have a competitor), the A321XLR (Boeing doesn’t have a competitor), the A330neo (which somewhat fills the gap between the A321neo and A350), and we’ve seen significant improvements to the A350-1000, which make it pretty competitive to the 777X
- I can’t help but feel like aircraft technology will have to improve by a lot more than 20% by 2035; we know Airbus is working on some zero emissions concepts, with the hope of having them flying by 2035
Bottom line
Boeing is putting its New Midsize Airplane (NMA) concept on the back-burner. The plan is to now not have a completely new aircraft type until 2035 or so, and instead focus on incremental improvements for the time being. With the pace at which technology evolves and commitments to sustainability change, I can’t help but think that new concepts by 2035 will probably look different than the current NMA plan.
What do you make of Boeing not planning any new aircraft types until the mid-2030s?
Boeing could improve the existing 767-200/300/400ER aircraft with new composite wings & tailplane + a choice of new technology engines including the Rolls Royce Ultrafan. Airlines probably want the gap between the Boeing 737 + Airbus A320 series to be filled incrementally rather than a huge jump to the B787 or A350 range.
Boeing just lost the race to Airbus. They’ll lose to Comac (China) within a decade. Boeing is going the way of Hewlett-Packard or even Motorola. From innovation lead companies to cowardly profit-motive lead companies.
Just another example of the problem with modern "engineering" firms, especially in the US. If it it's not groundbreaking, it's not considered worth doing. Nevermind that incremental improvement on previous designs is exactly how these companies came to dominate the market in the first place. Iterating on known and existing products lets you project development time and costs more accurately, which in turn keeps costs down by preventing cost overruns and project delays (sorry, can't...
Just another example of the problem with modern "engineering" firms, especially in the US. If it it's not groundbreaking, it's not considered worth doing. Nevermind that incremental improvement on previous designs is exactly how these companies came to dominate the market in the first place. Iterating on known and existing products lets you project development time and costs more accurately, which in turn keeps costs down by preventing cost overruns and project delays (sorry, can't get EMALS to work, sorry, no engine exists that gives us the projected fuel efficiency for this size plane, etc. etc.), allows new tech to be phased in as it becomes ready and then debugged more efficiently. But until then, you design within the limits of available tech. Then you upgrade. The OG 777, 747, A320, etc didn't just spring into being as their current versions.
Since McDonald-Douglas, Boeing has ceased to exist. Stonecipher and McNerney looted the company. What is left is the hollowed-out shell of a once-great engineering institution.
"The engine technology is not there"... when was the last time we heard that? It was when people were calling on Boeing to replace the 737 with a clean sheet design. Along comes Airbus and voila! The A320neo family and all of a sudden the engine technology is there. We could have had a clean sheet design but McNerney only cared about one thing - how to use Boeing as his own personal piggy bank...
"The engine technology is not there"... when was the last time we heard that? It was when people were calling on Boeing to replace the 737 with a clean sheet design. Along comes Airbus and voila! The A320neo family and all of a sudden the engine technology is there. We could have had a clean sheet design but McNerney only cared about one thing - how to use Boeing as his own personal piggy bank for himself and shareholders and redirect money that would have gone to Research and Development to buying back stock. Now we have no competitor to the A321neoXLR and no replacement to the 757 (we keep being told the 737 Max 10 is the replacement but we all know this is malarkey). Now what is the excuse for not designing and building a new clean sheet NMA 2.0? "The engine technology is not there". Now Boeing may not be buying back stock, but where do you think that money that isn't being invested is going to? Trust me, it has being irritating working at an "Airplane Bank"
They are moving out of yhe commercial industry. 737/320 is the bread and butter of the industry. 737 just got it's last retrofit. 320 is newer so has a few more updates to go. Lets not forget the Chinese that have a brand new plane. Right now Boeing is last and they are not doing anything in the matter. Not to mention that the certification of the 737-10/7 is questionable.
I think this is a very wise move, given the
Current market and overseas competition.
I just flew on the 787 and A359 for the first time these past few days (JAL 787 and SQ 787 and 359). As a passenger, SQ’s A359 felt like a far superior product. Flight attendants ability to dictate control of the window shades really bothered me. Fortunately the JL and SQ 787’s, flight attendants in this case allowed me to look out the window when most of the J cabin was darker than a cave.
My understanding was that Boeing wanted to put in glass controls for the max but because of the additional training airlines advocated against it
From what I see it, (based on what I read), Boeing started going downhill when they merged with Mcdonnell Douglas and the "bean counters" at MD took over on calling the shots. It's basically been downhill ever since.
I wonder how fast Lockheed could bring a modernized L1011 twin jet to market.
Lockheed would not be able to revive that Trijet. That plane could not compete with the 747 or even the DC-10.
Secondly Lockheed as a company is more in tune with fighter aircraft than commercial. The latter type have orders of magnitude higher standards for safety, and it takes a different engineering mindset than fighter aircraft. LM has no chance of successfully re-entering the commercial airline space. In fact it was never a real...
Lockheed would not be able to revive that Trijet. That plane could not compete with the 747 or even the DC-10.
Secondly Lockheed as a company is more in tune with fighter aircraft than commercial. The latter type have orders of magnitude higher standards for safety, and it takes a different engineering mindset than fighter aircraft. LM has no chance of successfully re-entering the commercial airline space. In fact it was never a real player there.
If Boeing had never acquired McD, it (Boeing) would have still retained its #1 spot in the commercial space and McD would be giving LM a run for fighter dollars. The acquisition destroyed both! Right now Boeing cannot compete with either LM or Airbus in either space sadly.
All you have to do it read the very well documented book, Flying Blind, by Peter Robison (2021) and you get good insights on why Boeing is in the fix they're in. What used to be a truly world class engineering company has totally succumbed to the Jack Welsh mentality of stock buybacks and share price manipulation vs. engineering excellence. David Calhoun continues that tradition. CFO Brian West just last week reiterated this philosophy to...
All you have to do it read the very well documented book, Flying Blind, by Peter Robison (2021) and you get good insights on why Boeing is in the fix they're in. What used to be a truly world class engineering company has totally succumbed to the Jack Welsh mentality of stock buybacks and share price manipulation vs. engineering excellence. David Calhoun continues that tradition. CFO Brian West just last week reiterated this philosophy to analysts by predicting that Boeing would return to being "the cash juggernaut you're all familiar with". After two 737 Max crashes former CEO Dennis Muilenburg walked away with a $60M golden parachute in 12/19 without a hint of remorse. It's a hollowed-out corporation without any values, vision, voice or virtues, and it's criminal to have witnessed such an unprecedented downfall over the last two decades.
Worse than that, their HQ move to DC speaks volumes. It means Boeing realizes it can no longer compete in anything even resembling a free market with real competitors (even if it was a duopoly). Their corporate plan is to lobby DC for fat military and space contracts where price, quality, and value take a back seat to how much campaign money you can stuff in the right politician's back pocket, which is the only...
Worse than that, their HQ move to DC speaks volumes. It means Boeing realizes it can no longer compete in anything even resembling a free market with real competitors (even if it was a duopoly). Their corporate plan is to lobby DC for fat military and space contracts where price, quality, and value take a back seat to how much campaign money you can stuff in the right politician's back pocket, which is the only skill they plan on honing over the next several decades.
Even if they want to get back into civilian aircraft, in a decade, their order book will dry up. Already the A350-1000 is cutting into the 777X, the 737 has no room for even incremental improvements, while Airbus continues to improve the A320 line. So when it comes time to dedicate several billion dollars to fund the development of a new plane, where will those funds come from if their sales have shriveled up?
Much better to compete for military contracts where the government pays you for your R&D, then pays for your crappy product even if it fails to meet requirements, and pays you more if you're over budget. And then use their cost+ govt accounting profits to keep buying back shares. It's the American way!
Quelle surprise. I'm sure they'll just add 30 feet of fuselage to the 737, or a second deck, held aloft by a second set of wings. Call it the 737 tiptop mega, and insist it's self-certified for single engine cessna pilots to fly. Seriously the way Boeing is going we're going to be flying in 777s in 2060. And probably 737 tiptop megas lol.
Cheers to the people who thought Airbus/Boeing duopoly is a good thing.
@Eskimoo
I agree. Imagine an alternative world where Fokker and Bombardier had prospered and grown and entered the widebody market. [sighs]
Boeing has just given up on even attempting at being an engineering company. It's a bank now. Fifty years from now they will be flying the 737-Max+++Ultra model. Will still be the same old tired plane that was flying in the early 70s. I don't think the company has it in them to come up with anything new and groundbreaking. They actually were working on a totally new narrowbody based around the 787. I actually...
Boeing has just given up on even attempting at being an engineering company. It's a bank now. Fifty years from now they will be flying the 737-Max+++Ultra model. Will still be the same old tired plane that was flying in the early 70s. I don't think the company has it in them to come up with anything new and groundbreaking. They actually were working on a totally new narrowbody based around the 787. I actually saw the concepts back in 2010. But then the bankers rolled in and the max was born. The best they'll do from here on out will be a 767-max and 757-max. Cheap and fast. That seems to be all they can do these days. So sad to see a once great engineering company be swallowed by bankers who ruin everything they touch.
Maybe the Boeing 737-Super Max?
Boeing 737-Ultra Max?
Boeing 737-Mega Max?
Boeing 737- Max Wow?
767 = the most comfortable widebody plane for peons like me…
757 = the most comfortable and highest performance narrowbody plane
Boeing killed them both while keeping the awful 737 alive… sigh, imbeciles
Just modernize the 767 and 757 planes and you’d have winners: bring new engines, perhaps work on conversion of some parts to carbo fiber, etc. Sadly won’t happen. Another formerly great american company taken over by bean counters with no vision...
767 = the most comfortable widebody plane for peons like me…
757 = the most comfortable and highest performance narrowbody plane
Boeing killed them both while keeping the awful 737 alive… sigh, imbeciles
Just modernize the 767 and 757 planes and you’d have winners: bring new engines, perhaps work on conversion of some parts to carbo fiber, etc. Sadly won’t happen. Another formerly great american company taken over by bean counters with no vision beyond the quarterly reports.
They were "imbeciles" for keeping the model that was selling by the thousands, while ditching the one that got like 3 sales in its last two years of offering? Really? Do you people put the slightest bit of thought into some of these posts you make?
Totally agree. Many on this blog and elsewhere love to kick the 76 and 75. Beautiful comfortable aircraft. Always look forward to my 75 and 76 rides on Delta.
Totally agree on the 757/767. The 757 IMO is the finest narrow body ride ever, especially in 1st class. Not politically correct these days, but to board go left to 1st is very nice. Imagine, again these days, board and actually have 1st class service while on the ground. Such fond memories of my weekly DFW to SFO trips back when DL had a hub at DFW.
Do you think DL will order any A321XLRs (or convert some of their A321neo orders) to replace their TATL 757s? AA, UA and AC have all already ordered them
DL says the economics of narrowbody 8+ hour flights with 170 passengers is not favorable compared to widebodies because of the need to have 3 pilots which is why DL has passed on buying the long range versions of the A321NEO.
I am betting they will keep the B767s as long as they can - the 767-400ER could easily make it into the 2030s - and by that time they will have a good...
DL says the economics of narrowbody 8+ hour flights with 170 passengers is not favorable compared to widebodies because of the need to have 3 pilots which is why DL has passed on buying the long range versions of the A321NEO.
I am betting they will keep the B767s as long as they can - the 767-400ER could easily make it into the 2030s - and by that time they will have a good idea of what the airplane makers have on their drawing board.
When you are one of the largest airlines in the world and specifically leave "holes" in your fleet plan for new airplanes (unlike airlines that order 500 airplanes at a time), DL not only has negotiating power but also makes sure that the manufacturers have a reason to keep DL updated on what is on the drawing board - and DL gets a chance to tell the manufacturers what they will buy if only someone makes it.
now is the time, first re engine the 767 and work on the MOM plane and use it to leverage the 737 replacement. It takes bold thinking from engineers. Too many MBA's at boeing
Probably for the better. All of their good engineers have either left the company or retiree. If they are unable to even get slight iterations of current aircraft flying, what would make us think they could design a safe new aircraft? With the exception of some paint chipping the a350 has not had even close to the number of problems the 787 has had. That is enough evidence for me to say they lack the expertise to do this type of undertaking.
Elon Musk should take over Boeing and whip it into shape. Either that, or SpaceX should start making jetliners.
Elon Musk as much as I can't stand him is the only capable of turning Boeing around
"Elon Musk as much as I can't stand him is the only capable of turning Boeing around"
....based on ***WHAT***?
Seriously, this I've got to hear. lol
They dropped the ball. The 757 and 767 airplanes served them well. Good airplanes but they put all their eggs in one basket with the 737 which did not go well for them. Too bad the old Boeing Co is not around anymore. They used to build them right and right sized. A thing of the past.
Oh Boeing, just make the 757 Max already...
It’s only gonna get worse for Boeing. Everything was great when HQ was in Seattle. Started going bad when they moved to Chicago post-merger. Now they’re doubling down and moving further from Everett to DC
It’s obvious to anyone with a brain that the move to DC signifies the end of Boeing being an innovator. They’d rather be close to the politicians and lobbyists so they can try and circumvent the law and competition than...
It’s only gonna get worse for Boeing. Everything was great when HQ was in Seattle. Started going bad when they moved to Chicago post-merger. Now they’re doubling down and moving further from Everett to DC
It’s obvious to anyone with a brain that the move to DC signifies the end of Boeing being an innovator. They’d rather be close to the politicians and lobbyists so they can try and circumvent the law and competition than innovate.
The MAX crash/grounding debacle (and continued MAX-10 certification threats) sum it up pretty well
Boeing, boeing gone. It isn't a good thing for the industry however.
Good news for Airbus. The 2-3-2 econ seating is the most comfortable config to fly so hopefully there will be more like it.
Boeing may have tricked Airbus into building the unnecessary A380, but Airbus clearly got the last laugh - it's kinda sad that Boeing discontinued old but still solid 767s and 757s long before they (both Boeing and Airbus) realized it's a viable model to upgrade existing successful aircraft designs. I'm no engineer, so feel free to prove me wrong, but seems like both models could've been fairly easily reworked into modern-ish & more efficient aircrafts...
Boeing may have tricked Airbus into building the unnecessary A380, but Airbus clearly got the last laugh - it's kinda sad that Boeing discontinued old but still solid 767s and 757s long before they (both Boeing and Airbus) realized it's a viable model to upgrade existing successful aircraft designs. I'm no engineer, so feel free to prove me wrong, but seems like both models could've been fairly easily reworked into modern-ish & more efficient aircrafts with new engines and some composite materials - much like a320, a330 and 737.
Boeing definitely can use some 767 and 757 NEOs now - not MAXs lol.
Sure, but (for about the umpteenth-trillionth time) they OFFERED THAT and the airlines said "no."
Boeing would've been happy to update the 757 in the late '00s, but they needed more orders to justify the line against investors' desire for an additional 737NG rolling-line. 737s were selling, 757s were not.
Between 2000 and 2005, they sought a hundred 757 orders to bridge the gap for a potential update/reengine/further stretch, publicly would've settled for around 30,...
Sure, but (for about the umpteenth-trillionth time) they OFFERED THAT and the airlines said "no."
Boeing would've been happy to update the 757 in the late '00s, but they needed more orders to justify the line against investors' desire for an additional 737NG rolling-line. 737s were selling, 757s were not.
Between 2000 and 2005, they sought a hundred 757 orders to bridge the gap for a potential update/reengine/further stretch, publicly would've settled for around 30, internally maybe less.... but they got a grand total of 7. Seven units sold, in 6yrs.
So they did what any and every company would've done: shut down what wasn't selling, create more of what was.
@ ConcordeEmbryo
"....umpteenth-triilionth time"
Exaggeration and hyperbole kill your credibility. Don't do that shit. Basic university first year writing 101.
Ah, I was wondering where the freak with nothing better to do than obsess over me, may have gotten off to.... "good" to see you're still here.
The airbus A320,330 were more modern designs to work from than the 737,757,767. Hence A320 neo are in better shape than max…as 737 design is maxed out. Boeing didn’t invest in new products because they got greedy about profits. Typical of their corporate culture. Now they are pay the price of their short sighted view. They will be number 2 to Airbus for decades to come. Boeing had that long vision about original 777 and...
The airbus A320,330 were more modern designs to work from than the 737,757,767. Hence A320 neo are in better shape than max…as 737 design is maxed out. Boeing didn’t invest in new products because they got greedy about profits. Typical of their corporate culture. Now they are pay the price of their short sighted view. They will be number 2 to Airbus for decades to come. Boeing had that long vision about original 777 and look how successful that was. But that’s a long time ago.
Is it Boeing management being greedy or the shareholders being greedy? The hedge funds only give a **** about profits for next quarter and MAYBE next year.
"Is it Boeing management being greedy or the shareholders being greedy?"
The former. There is nothing to stop any company's management from being smart and playing the long game. As only one example, Amazon didn't pay a dime in dividends for a decade. Investors looking for a quick buck didn't force management's hand, they merely stayed away.
There are counterexamples, but they are exceptions that prove the rule. If management is so greedy that...
"Is it Boeing management being greedy or the shareholders being greedy?"
The former. There is nothing to stop any company's management from being smart and playing the long game. As only one example, Amazon didn't pay a dime in dividends for a decade. Investors looking for a quick buck didn't force management's hand, they merely stayed away.
There are counterexamples, but they are exceptions that prove the rule. If management is so greedy that it gives board seats to quarterly earnings watchers, well, you reap what you sow.
Boeing should just go out of business.
I think it's the other way round. Airbus made a loss, for sure, but in doing so, swept the 747 cash cow from the sky. The B747 was very profitable after its design and initial production costs were paid off. That extra profit could have financed a new 737 replacement.
The A380 was a simple loss leader doing what loss leaders do: get your opponent's customers in YOUR door, and starve your opponents of profit.
Appears to me that Boeing management is finally admitting that they no longer have the engineering and management capability to successfully design a completely new model of aircraft. Very sad day for Boeing. I had sometimes wondered what Boeing would number their next designs (after the obvious choice of the 797)--looks like we may never even get the 797 now, much less an additional follow on to see what they would come up with.
Back in the 1990’s, McDonnell Douglas came to the conclusion that the ROI on building planes was less than they could make from military contracts and investing the companies money. They then sold themselves to Boeing.
I think Boeing has come to the same conclusion and will shutdown their commercial airline division and sell it to China.
As the article states, most of the efficiencies come from new propulsion systems. Open fan technology has not been developed far enough yet.
"Open fan technology has not been developed far enough yet."
The kind of innovation Boeing's looking from will far more likely come from the combination of increased ease in mass-production of exotic materials, and non-petroleum sources/additives for a base fuel.
Rehashing shitty '80s tech with new lipstick, won't do it.
Not true. It's a combination. The 787 has an efficient engine, but also the composite wing, bleedless air systems, etc. etc. were all revolutionary and had a big effect on fuel economy as well.
Boeing here is passing the buck. They're saying that the reason they're not building a new airplane is because the engine mfg'ers haven't come up with a new engine. BS. It's because they can no longer design a cleansheet airplane. Heck,...
Not true. It's a combination. The 787 has an efficient engine, but also the composite wing, bleedless air systems, etc. etc. were all revolutionary and had a big effect on fuel economy as well.
Boeing here is passing the buck. They're saying that the reason they're not building a new airplane is because the engine mfg'ers haven't come up with a new engine. BS. It's because they can no longer design a cleansheet airplane. Heck, they can barely manufacture 20-30-50 year designs (last year, the 737, 787, and 777 lines were all stopped; think about that. Boeing was unable to produce a single civilian aircraft due to quality and production issues).
The 737-Max doesn't have some revolutionary new engine. It's just small improvements here and there. Similarly, the 777X engine is a derivative of pre-existing engines.
For that matter, Airbus seems to have developed quite a nice portfolio of planes without needing to wait for the next generation of engines. And when those engines finally appear, guess who will have the revenue required to fund the development of the next generation of planes?
Sorry, this was in reply to @Brian Gasser
Boeing has basically ceded the middle market space to Airbus. I wonder if we could eventually see a lighter shorter range version of the 787-8 to help replace 767s
I'd wondered the same thing—derate the engines, lower the MTOW, and sell it for cheap just to be in the space.
You just described the 787-3.... and how'd that turn out in sales?
Wow! I thought that Boeing had the NMA design pretty firm, to the point I was expecting them to announce it within the next year or so. A clean sheet design would have really challenged Airbus, and could have put Boeing in a very good position for the next 10 years.
Not to say that this was the wrong decision. They are playing the long game, and certainly have their share of challenges right now...
Wow! I thought that Boeing had the NMA design pretty firm, to the point I was expecting them to announce it within the next year or so. A clean sheet design would have really challenged Airbus, and could have put Boeing in a very good position for the next 10 years.
Not to say that this was the wrong decision. They are playing the long game, and certainly have their share of challenges right now or sort out.
Almost certainly, Boeing will always be relevant. But this means that they will be at a disadvantage for a while.
sad to see Boeing relinquishing its position as the world's top jetmaker to Airbus but the latter has a better product line across the board.
As for Delta, their recent MAX order undoubtedly followed their learning that there would be no NMA. The A330-900 has trip costs very similar to the 767-300ER and -400 so if Delta is forced to order something as a 767 replacement (DL's 767 fleet will probably be here until...
sad to see Boeing relinquishing its position as the world's top jetmaker to Airbus but the latter has a better product line across the board.
As for Delta, their recent MAX order undoubtedly followed their learning that there would be no NMA. The A330-900 has trip costs very similar to the 767-300ER and -400 so if Delta is forced to order something as a 767 replacement (DL's 767 fleet will probably be here until 2030 or later) while they say they aren't interested in longhaul narrowbody operations largely because of costs - it takes 3 pilots to operate beyond 8 hours for US airlines and the economics of having only 170 passengers on the A321LR or -XLR are worse than for a widebody.
UA is likely to commit to a massive order for the 787 which they will use to replace large portions of their aging current widebody fleet including eventually their 767s.
Airbus has little incentive to build anything new but is still doing work on new propulsion systems such as hydrogen.
The 757 and 767 will both go down as some of the most significant models that Boeing built in large part because they have never been replaced by anything else - and may not - in terms of size, performance, and cost.
beautifully said Tim, its a shame to see American engineering putting on a hod while the Europeans work with innovative tech. Hopefully we see a change in Everett soon
I doubt Boeing is going to be less innovating. For the next generation of aircraft, there will need to be advances in technology (in terms of systems, materials, passenger comfort). They will certainly be doing this innovating in the background.
The NMA really was just a stop gap to fill the place until the next-generation of aircraft arrive, which will likely be of similar capacity. They would not have had a chance to make much...
I doubt Boeing is going to be less innovating. For the next generation of aircraft, there will need to be advances in technology (in terms of systems, materials, passenger comfort). They will certainly be doing this innovating in the background.
The NMA really was just a stop gap to fill the place until the next-generation of aircraft arrive, which will likely be of similar capacity. They would not have had a chance to make much money on it to recoup development costs.
Hahaha lololol! Brilliant, just brilliant!
Boeing ceased being an aircraft manufacturer the day they left Seattle. Ever since, all they care is stock value.
Bahahahahahaaa!!! "TIM DUNN LOVER"???? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
We've seen the username before but the heart is all new.
Boeing is done. Worst company in the world to work for. Employees treated like little children, managers can't even tell you what they're crews even do. Only 4th rate engineering students apply to lead the way. Everett plant is half empty and unused. Boeing will leave the Puget Sound area within 15 years. Corporate raiders run the joint. None of the top 20 execs have eng. degrees. All about stock price. If it's a Boeing, I ain't a going