Back to Squawk list
  • 20

Boeing's new CEO orders rethink on New mid-market jetliner project

Soumis
 
LONDON/CHICAGO (Reuters) - Boeing Co's <BA.N> new chief executive has sent the aerospace giant back to the drawing board on proposals for a new mid-market aircraft, effectively shelving in their current form plans worth $15 billion-$20 billion (www.yahoo.com) Plus d'info...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


saltydalty09
Dalton Allen 10
Bring the 757 back to the table pretty please?!
mbrews
mbrews 4
- I for one, welcome a 757 NEO. Naysayers have a kneejerk reaction - oh gosh, Boeing destroyed the original production tooling, so don't think further. But a wise CEO would ask his staff- How much development time and development risk, to reconstruct tooling for a known proven 757 airframe ? And power it with efficient engines. Many of the existing 757 fleet is powered by Rolls engines. I bet Rolls would be happy to offer engines for a 757 neo. Would certainly be less risk and faster time-to-market than NMA
boeingman29562
Josh McCorquodale 4
From my understanding, the main problem with a 757 re-engine comes down to aerodynamics and weight. Although there may be efficiency improvements from a GTF conversion, there is no changing the fact that it is an old airframe and would already be well behind the operating economics of the A321XLR.

https://leehamnews.com/2015/02/12/boeing-757-max-why-its-operating-economics-does-not-work/
JuanJHartlohner
Juan J Hartlohner 1
The 757 basic airframe goes back to the 707, 727 and 737; same barrel, pure Renton product.
btweston
btweston 1
btweston
btweston 1
It appears that I’m being downvoted around here, but bear in mind that it’s not my fault that the 757 is as heavy as it is, nor is it my fault that it is aerodynamically challenged compared to newer, more advanced designs.

Sure, it was a cool plane back in the day. Now it is obsolete. Again, nor my fault. Get over it.
JuanJHartlohner
Juan J Hartlohner 1
A new 757 would need a much lighter airframe and systems.
The old 757-200 had a DOW of 60,000kgs (132,000lbs), unable to compete with A321 and their like. So it would need to be some kind of composite narrow body 787 with brand new engines of around 35,000 lbs of thrust.
For performance it should retain an eight wheel MLG and large flaps, to make it able to land and tkof from short runways with its MTOW. That was the beauty of the 757!
Quirkyfrog
Robert Cowling 4
757!!!

757!!!

757!!!
btweston
btweston -3
L!!!

O!!!

L!!!

mpberti
miles berti 3
No its time for a clean sheet no more remonesings in the past. Time marches on and Boeing need something completely new and revolutionary to regain its market dominance and the trust of the flying public
indy2001
indy2001 3
For years Airbus has profited by copying Boeing aircraft and making improvements here and there, especially with newer, lighter, more economical airframe parts and engines. (Only the A380 was anything close to a "clean sheet" aircraft and it cost them dearly because they misread the market badly.) There's no reason why Boeing can't turn the tables and do the same thing in return. Projections show that thousands of aircraft will be needed worldwide in the next couple of decades. It's not too late for Boeing to recover its fair share.
patpylot
patrick baker 3
i have never wavered in my hope for a retooled/reengined 757. Maybe some exterior sculpting for more slipperiness, certainly new engines that fit into the existing nacelles, and let her rip: The 757 already works, has huge affection from pilots and the passengers, so Boeing: build on that. No MCAS, maybe fly-by-wire, and decent seat pitch and large bathrooms, and the winner returns for a new run.
JuanJHartlohner
Juan J Hartlohner 1
Airplane success depends not on pilots and pax affection, but on economics. The 757 was too good an airplane, but soon turned too expensive to operate. Boeing's own product, namely the 737NG killed it. It could fly almost on the same sectors and with the same number of pax, but its TOW was very close to the empty weight of the 757.
Boeing brought the NG to the market, only to compete with the A320/321. Yet, neither NG nor A320 have the impressive performance of the 757, and that's the reason why they are still around. The 321XLR can't compete out of short runways or high elevation airports. Just compare MLGs, wings and flaps; you don't need to be a savvy engineer to know what to expect. PS: I did my base training on the 757 prototype N757N back in 87. Loved the 757!
JuanJHartlohner
Juan J Hartlohner 1
Uh, it should read N757A; Alpha not November. SRY!
jeffinsydney
jeff slack 3
Some would say Boeing has missed the boat.
I think they missed their flight...........sadly Airbus has made huge gains in the last 12 months.

Corporate greed from Chicago has all but ruined a once-great company.
JuanJHartlohner
Juan J Hartlohner 1
If you ask me, I would envisage a narrow-body single-aisle composite 797, based on the 787 with a barrel of up 160 inches, but no less than 156 in. (that’s eight or twelve more than the 737/757); in two basic versions, say the 797-2 to substitute the 737-8/9/10 with a cabin to seat 225 in an LCC-config and a 797-3 going up in high-density to 260 pax as successor of 757 and 767-300.
Systems and flight controls, an updated version of the 787’s. Landing gear to retain the eight MLG-wheels of 757/767. High-lift devices (flaps & slats) to ensure optimal performance at short and contaminated runways, as well as hot and high elevation airports. Wings optimized for Mach .82 or .84 and eco-ops at FL400 and up to FL460. DOWs of the -200 to compete with the A321neo and -300 retaining the same ratio to the higher occupancy. Powerplants: two ultra-high bypass GTF turbofans of 35,000 to 50,000 lbs thrust each.
The smaller market (130-190 pax) to be served by Embraer, in competition with the originally Canadian A220-100/300/500.
The 797 should gradually take over the assambly line at Renton, ending the historical 148 inches barrel production of 707,727,737, and 757, and making Boeing great again.
Commercial aircraft management to be moved back to the SEA-area, and away from Chicago.
Wonder what Steven Udvar-Hazy is advising the new Boeing top brass to do.
Propwash122
Peter Fuller 1
“...effectively shelving in their current form plans worth $15 billion-$20 billion...”: sloppy writing and/or editing courtesy of yahoo.

I doubt preliminary studies and plans for an NMA cost anywhere near that much. $15-$20 billion sounds more like the all-up total cost to develop a clean-sheet new aircraft from concept to entry into service.
fofoba
fofoba 1
Bonjour
JuanJHartlohner
Juan J Hartlohner 1
What Boeing needs to bring to the market -soon- is a totally new aircraft, that in two different versions can substitute both the 757 and the 737. New engines, new airframe, new technology.
The high DOW killed the 757, and an obsolete technology is about to kill the 737 (it dates back to the Dash-80 of the 50s), huge fans can't help it!

Se connecter

Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!
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