← Back to Squawk list

63

United is on the edge of separation from Boeing's NMA program

Soumis il y a un an

United Airlines is looking for an efficient replacement for the 130 Boeing 757 and 767 jets in its fleet and wants Boeing to make a clear statement if there will be a new Boeing jet for the middle of the market in the foreseeable future. (airlinerwatch.com) Plus d'info...

51 commentaires des membres

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Ivan Blakely il y a un an 20

I don't understand why this particular article generates a discussion (argument?) about climate change...
Is this not more about United's timeline for fleet renewal and the candidate aircraft available to be considered?

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Matha Goram il y a un an 6

There is technology and then there is economics. The real world of commercial aviation is skewed by opaque accounting practices (lasts as long as they can get away with these). I only hope that we sustain the flow of commercial pilots with living wages to maintain the advances in aviation.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Adam DiSarro il y a un an 5

It sounds like a lot of pre-merger Continental management are still at United. Continental was very committed to Boeing as the sole provider of their mainline fleet.
As to the A321XLR being "better", the base A321 without auxiliary fuel tanks is not able to cruise anywhere near as far as the base 757-200, which never had auxiliary fuel tanks. The biggest mistake with scrapping the 757 program was doing so before ETOPS became a thing. Foreknowledge could have prevented this mess, but it wasn't there. Had Boeing not decided to go with the stretched 737NG and ultimately the MAX, we would have seen a newer, more efficient version of the 757 series. It's a shame that the MAX being unbalanced would lead to major delays in the NMA project, which would make Airbus eat up even more of a market share. Heck, if Boeing offered auxiliary fuel tanks on a revamped 757 aircraft, it would be able to cruise much further than the A321 in any form.
Either way, Boeing is paying the price for bad decisions, and Airbus is eating up Boeing's mistakes.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Wolfgang Prigge il y a un an 0

But a new 757 would still be hampered by the too narrow cabin.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

J Grospe il y a un an 3

This “99%” figure is all the more reason you make us believe that everything else in your statement is merely hyperbole.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

ray hughes il y a un an 3

not my figures..here is the latest URL link;
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

George Cottay il y a un an 1

Perhaps (I have no inside info so take the perhaps seriously) Boeing is not so much distracted by the 737 MAX debacle as it is learning from it and making sure they get their NMA right.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

ray hughes il y a un an 5

I wish I could believe you, but subsequent events have so far indicated Boeing is marching on under the same principles as before the 737 Max crashes..
The fact that the board did not go along with the separation of roles for the existing CEO as proposed by a small group of shareholders, leads me to believe their behavior will be slow to change.. By making the South Carolina plant a Union Free operation and ignoring responsible managers concerns about signing off on sloppy work at this plant in order to get it up and running to meet growing airline demands, you can see they have a long way to come back from.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Ken Lyman il y a un an 1

I prefer the Airbus.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

ray hughes il y a un an -5

Right now Boeing leadership is a little distracted..and with 99 percent of the worlds scientists agreeing Global warming is a thing and caused by human activity, not a natural heating cycle, maybe Boeing is really struggling with the next generational alternatives

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

dav555 il y a un an -4

It's simply not true that 99% of the world's scientists agree that global warming is caused by human activity. Can you back up your claim? Of course you can't.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

ray hughes il y a un an 2

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Arjan Hulsebos il y a un an 1

It's fairly easy to back it up. Take all the peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming and devide them up along the human activity/other causes line, and count them. Alternatively, you count the authors of said papers. IIRC, the last time this was done the number turned out to be 97% on the human activity side.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

bentwing60 il y a un an 0

Isn't that a bit odd, in a totally "Woke,sjw,progressive world", when all you people have is a hammer, "everything looks like a nail"!

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

James Radcliffe il y a un an -1

What nonsense.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15624-cooking-climate-consensus-data-97-of-scientists-affirm-agw-debunked

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

dav555 il y a un an 1

While I agree that Boeing needs to get busy making a 757 replacement, you are misinformed in regards to global warming. First, I am an advocate of alternative energy and efforts to reduce pollution, even if this will increase the cost of energy.
The Antarctic and Arctic ice sheets are growing, not shrinking. Moreover, although we have indeed had record temperatures in the Summer lately, there were also very high record-breaking high temps recorded back in the 1930s that still have not been surpassed. This proves to me that the very slight increase in global average temperature, which is real I agree, is not a man-made phenomenon. We are simply in a warming cycle and who knows how long it will last.
Carbon taxes and the whole climate change hysteria is all about taxes, i.e. corrupt politicians looking for new sources of tax revenue.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Ken McIntyre il y a un an 2

Right on, Dav. Greenland is now becoming inhabitable. Again. After the Vikings had to leave around 1200AD for....wait for it....GLOBAL COOLING. Those Vikings must have move to Bloomington, Minnesota at bought a bunch of those nasty SUVs to drive to work...

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Andrea Gentilini il y a un an -6

I agree with you: since recent data shows that temperatures are no more on the rise, those "scientists" don't talk about "global warming" anymore, but simply about "climate change". Thare are also scientists, like Nobel Prize winner dr. Carlo Rubbia, that say that climate change is only a big hoax !!

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Colin Seftel il y a un an 4

Professor Carlo Rubbia has NEVER said that climate change is a hoax. Like almost every scientist, he is very concerned that we are not doing enough to reduce carbon emissions. This are his words:

"We are facing an emergency. We have ten to 15 years to change the world, otherwise the world will change us. And it will change us in terrible ways," said Professor Rubbia, who headed the Italian Institute for New technologies, Energy and Environment until 2005.

He said that reports claiming Venice could soon be flooded and that the ice on the Alps would disappear are no exaggeration.

"In the short time we have available we must develop the means to face the situation. We must concentrate on science and technology," said Rubbia. "The only solution is technology. The only way forward is research, research and more research," he said.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

James Radcliffe il y a un an -2

And Kary Mullis is another. Nobel prize for Chemistry!

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Colin Seftel il y a un an 4

This is what Wikipedia has on Mullis:
A New York Times article listed Mullis as one of several scientists who, after success in their area of research, go on to make unfounded, sometimes bizarre statements in other areas. An article in the Skeptical Inquirer described Mullis as an "AIDS denialist with scientific credentials [who] has never done any scientific research on HIV or AIDS." Mullis published an alternative theory of AIDS in 1994. He has questioned the scientific validity of the link between HIV and AIDS, leading some to label him an "AIDS denialist."

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Don Quixote il y a un an -2

a clean-sheet new aircraft? Then who else has a clean-sheet new aircraft? Like Airbus? All they've done is the same thing, adding on to A321's like the 737 model. Boeing built a clean-sheet new aircraft like the 787. Did they forget how to build the Dreamliner? I think Boeing knows what they're doing, give them time. Customers want the 797, not an airbus.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Mike Boote il y a un an 12

I guess you forgot about the A350. Clean-sheet. Yes. Response to B787? Yes. Still, clean-sheet. Therefore, Airbus has had a clean-sheet aircraft since Boeing has had one. If you're complaining about "the same thing, adding on", need I mention the 737 Max, the 777X? Come on, be fair.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

airuphere il y a un an 5

**meant to reply here disregard above.
He’s not saying one or the other company can or can’t do a clean sheet... obliviously they both can... he was referring to the overall forum tone as of late hating on Boeing for adding on instead of clean for the Max. Simply pointing out here airbus is doing the same for their 757 killer the a321xlr when they both should be doing clean sheets for a NMA.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Michael Panzarella il y a un an 3

A350 is clean sheet

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

airuphere il y a un an 2

He’s not saying one or the other company can or can’t do a clean sheet... obliviously they both can... he was referring to the overall forum tone as of late hating on Boeing for adding on instead of clean for the Max. Simply pointing out here airbus is doing the same for their 757 killer the a321xlr when they both should be doing clean sheets for a NMA.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Dennis Seel il y a un an 1

Do some homework. The US has been successfully implementing technologies and process improvements for years. Most large companies have entire staffs working on improving existing processes and dealing with environmental issues since the 70s and 80s. You need to go and visit with these highly educated and experienced teams and see for yourself the enormous efforts going into reducing waste, protecting the environment and averting climate change. It’s impressive. My team was working on determining our carbon footprint and developing mitigation plans since 1998.
Meanwhile the rest of the planet can only play lipservice to their efforts. China could learn a lot from our work if they wanted to. Why aren’t you concerned with the biggest polluters that mane no effort toward avoiding climate change, where is your passion to call them out and demand some valid and verifiable improvements.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

ray hughes il y a un an 2

gosh - .. The rest of the planet can only pay lip service indeed!! . President Trump endorses coal burning in order to bring jobs to the unemployed - must make your job more difficult. The united States is currently still the most polluting country in the world ( see statistics on any neutral agenda news site ) If you are engineering efforts to reduce carbon footprint then that is fantastic and good on you... but lets not dis the rest of the world in the process. And you have energy Billionaires, like the Koch brothers, actively funding fake news sites to distort evidence and promote the coal and fuel industries. This must be very painful for you..

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

hd rider il y a un an 1

HAHAHAHAHA...That's funny

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

bentwing60 il y a un an -3

Someone a little more knowledgeable about weather and "climate change" is referenced below pb, not that I won't take your word for it, but, no, I won't!
he founded the Weather Channel!

https://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/featured/weather-channel-founder-debunks-global-warming-hoax/

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Daniel Griscom il y a un an 10

There are individuals out there who believe just about anything you can think of (the Earth is flat, vaccines are more risky than what they prevent, the Moon landing was faked, the Illuminati control the world, a DC pizzeria was the center of a Democratic pedophile conspiracy, human activities aren't driving climate change, etc. etc. etc.). The fact that you can find someone who supports your theory doesn't mean that you are correct. You need to see what the broad range of experts say ("no", "no", "no", "no", "no" and "no", respectively) before you can separate truth from fiction. Good luck.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

James Radcliffe il y a un an -2

And there use to be a scientific consensus that the earth was flat! There is no 97% consensus about the theory of Anthopogenic Global Warming. This has been debunked may times.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15624-cooking-climate-consensus-data-97-of-scientists-affirm-agw-debunked

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

David Kozlowski il y a un an 6

There has NEVER EVER been a scientific consensus that the earth was flat! As for the AGW consensus see:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The primary evidence is the isotopic makeup of the carbon in the atmosphere.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Daniel Griscom il y a un an 1

So, you're saying "nobody knows anything, and I can assert whatever I want"? Again, good luck.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Chris Lennard il y a un an 5

You need to understand the difference between weather and climate. And also watch Weather Channel segments about climate change.

BTW: I tried the url you posted and got the following error: ERROR 1020: Access denied. This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks.
It must know I'm not an American patriot.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

bentwing60 il y a un an -3

You need to understand that I simply presented a link to the views on the subject of a preeminent authority on all things weather and climate. I happen to agree with him and the link is functional for those smart enough to figure out how to utilize it.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

ray hughes il y a un an 0

Here is where I got my 99 percent from..
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99.

Anyway its not all about America - Global warming is a phenomenon that involves scientific papers from international scientist from around the world.. MOre importantly your URL Americanpatriotdaily is described as an extreme right wing fake news site.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Kairho Carroll il y a un an 2

That video is from 2014, over 5 years old. A lot has happened in the interim with more and more scientists concurring with climate change issues than ever before. What is needed is Coleman's current position.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

James Radcliffe il y a un an -2

https://polarbearscience.com/2019/03/26/latest-global-polar-bear-abundance-best-guess-estimate-is-39000-26000-58000/

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Edward West il y a un an 0

From someone with no knowledge of aircraft design maintenance etc. Why can't an older aircraft be fitted with newer engines?

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Edward West il y a un an 1

found my answer

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24277/can-old-passenger-airplanes-be-refitted-with-latest-engines-to-extend-their-life/24285

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Timothy Anderson il y a un an 0

I have tried for months to buy tickets from UAL on a direct flight from IAH to LHR. The cost of Business Class seats for me and my wife fluctuated daily between $20,834.46 and $5,841.46 for the exact same flight and seats. We finally bought a ride on British Airways and saved ourselves $2,100 compared to UAL. If this retail example of pricing strategy indicates how United manages maintenance, staffing and other aspects of their business, I can only wonder how long the once proud bird with the golden tail will remain aloft.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Mike Hindson-Evans il y a un an 1

This sounds like a competitive, globalised market working for the consumer; you may choose to apply brand loyalty or go for the lowest price. We plan ahead for our transatlantic trips and, as it happens, both the October hop and the Thanksgiving trip will be on British Airways.

"Golden Tail"? I though that United adopted the lovely ex-Continental "globe" tail design after the merger?

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

hd rider il y a un an -4

Why would anyone fly that airline anyway??? Worst ever.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Steve Sfameni il y a un an -5

Boeing is in no position to turn down United’s request for airplanes. Boeing should fix the MAX, rename it and sell to United.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Gary Hjelm il y a un an 5

Then Boeing should make a clean design change, because to fix all of the problems with this aircraft is too expensive for Boeing, and any airline who would want a second hand unit. The reason for the MCAS system on the 737-800 and 900 max, is because the engines are too heavy. They can cut the weight of the engine, but in the effort to do this change, then they lose the fuel economy, and suffer greatly on the costs per seat mileage. Right now they don't have a fix for MCAS system, or at the least, a MCAS system that doesn't crash the aircraft. Even when they find a fix for the MCAS system, then they are going to have to retrain all of the pilot's who are typed into the 737-800, and 900 aircraft. It would also be a good thing, if a new requirement for pilot's is introduced, and new problem is switching the aircraft from its automatic system to a pilot controlled aircraft. Pilot's in todays world rely too much on the automatic systems, and not on their skills as a pilot to fly the aircraft by hand.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Christopher Sargeant il y a un an 2

Much being said about automatic systems, but most of these systems are not primary to the task of actually maneuvering the aircraft. Add in an inherently unstable airframe that doesn't necessarily always behave as an aircraft instinctively should; a WWII-era flying ace who never met an automated system would probably crash it. Over-exaggerating, but it would be like asking an airline pilot to suddenly pilot a helicopter.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Steve Sfameni il y a un an 1

Well said Gary!

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Michael Panzarella il y a un an 3

United had already bought the MAX. this article is about NMA

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Se connecter

Ce site web utilise des cookies. En utilisant et en naviguant davantage sur ce site, vous acceptez cela.

Rejeter

Saviez-vous que le suivi des vols FlightAware est soutenu par la publicité ?

Vous pouvez nous aider à garder FlightAware gratuit en autorisant les annonces de FlightAware.com. Nous travaillons dur pour que notre publicité reste pertinente et discrète afin de créer une expérience formidable. Il est facile et rapide de mettre les annonces en liste blanche sur FlightAware ou d’examiner nos comptes premium.

Rejeter