Boeing must kick themselves every time they wake up in the morning because they never did a re-engined, upgraded 757. Everybody loves that plane. And it was exactly the right size and range to take on stretched A320s like the A321.
@@simonbarber2098 The 757 was much longer and 50,000 pounds (GW) heavier than the 737. Its airframe was considerably more expensive. And its passenger capacity was too high. As such, it was expensive and inefficient for the short-range market of the 737. The length of the 757 also made boarding and deplaning much longer than on the 737: Too many passengers with baggage sharing one congested aisle. That is why the then-expected replacement, the New Midrange Aircraft, was a shorter and wider jet with twin aisles, so it could carry the same number of passengers while boarding and deplaning more quickly.
Boeing got into trouble the moment Airbus developped the A320NEO. That caused boeing to develop the 737 MAX, and end up in the mess they're in. Airbus is once again showing the future of air travel, leaving Boeing for dust.
The biggest problem Boeing has is Boeing itself. The business model itself needs to be scrutinised, business practices that teeter on the edge of "criminal". Merciless profit maximisation through excessive outsourcing at the expense of safety and reduction and neglect of controlling. Reason: First and foremost competitive pressure from the professionally organised efficiency of Airbus...well...and now also from China, which is striving to stir up the Asian and African markets with its new model and almost uncontrollable state subsidies. The Airbus A 321XLR is a huge slap in the face for Boeing and its badly damaged image. If the traditionally Boeing-affine US airlines now migrate to Airbus because of this, things will look grim for the former primus. Well, unless the US government intervenes with drastic subsidies, which would, however, be problematic under international commercial law. Through its own fault, Boeing is currently doing pretty much everything wrong that can be done wrong. Airbus, on the other hand, has a virtually clean slate. They are currently doing everything right and are riding the wave of success. Airbus just has to be careful not to get too caught up in its success and fall into the same carelessness and mistakes as its US competitor. But we can be optimistic. Also due to the considerably better organisation of the entire company. Salutations des Caraïbes françaises...
Dream on . To bring Boeing back to a propper working culture will take decades . To remove the damages in production is a difficult , expensive process . It will only be successful with complete new leadership that values qualiti as the most importand target .
I worked for Boeing from 8/88 to 8/93. Got laid off. I never considered going back because of the direction I saw the company going even back then. Also Embraer makes an excellent product and I am always happy to hear about Airbus and Embraer taking market share from Boeing...
Its economical for the airlines but the flight crew is going to hate it. Imagine a 10 hour flight with no crew rest area. Your in the main cabin with the passengers and the on duty cabin crew but your off duty and tired. All you hear is ppl talking, babies crying and your trying to get a couple winks in before your start your shift time
@@SFledz .. Every Airline brings their own seat configuration... And... the crew is not important, they need no sleeping cabins, same as the passengers. Every Crew should be able to work less then 12h.
I have a friend who retired from Boeing as Design Engineer. He said they have at least 2 revolutionary designs, practically doable, but management nixed it to keep milking the 737. Oh, management was repeatedly earned MAX was a bad idea too.
I saw the A321XLR in an air show a few months ago and I gotta say it really impressed me, sleek design, really really quiet engine and so on… Boeings done for 😂
They said the 787 opened up new direct connections due to its long range and economics, eating away from hub traffic. It certainly helped driving down load factors and killing the already marginal business case for the A380. Next candidate to feel the pain (now multiplied by the A321XLR) will be the 777X program. Its no coincidence Airbus found not enough interest when shopping around concepts for a further stretch of the A350-1000. The ME3 ordered the 777X in huge numbers, but for all other airlines the A350-1000 is the max size they're currently willing to order.
Lower fuel burn, more efficiency, lower emissions: Let's safe the planet! 😊 At the same time: Long haul flights on discount, enjoy our world before it's too late, the devil may care! 😈
The problem at Boeing consists of many factors. 1. If you place the board 5,000 km away from the workers, you are looking for problems. A good boss is on the work floor half of the time. 2. If you keep modifying an aircraft like the 737, which originally dates from 1967, to the point where it is no longer aerodynamically viable, you are looking for problems. 3. Why did people treat the 737 this way? Just to please the shareholders. Because designing a new aircraft costs a lot of money. And people preferred to see more profit Meanwhile, behind their own backs, Boeing is being passed over by Airbus, which does produce top designs And so those eager shareholders are simply shooting in their own foot. 4. They cut that wonderful company into dozens of pieces in order to make as much profit as possible, and then lost the overview themselves. And then this, the compensation paid by Boeing to the families of the victims, does not even come from Boeing's pocket but from the pocket of Boeing's insurance company. That is shameless because their mismanagement does not cost them a cent
Boeing primarily continued the 737 because the certification of the pilots for the plane didn't have to be renewed. E.g. if you are a pilot on a B737, you just can't simply fly e.g. a A320, you need first a certification for that. And that's where it did go wrong with 737 max. Officially you don't need a new certification as it's still a 737, but too much changes in the electronics and engines where made so in reality you do fly a different plane. And pilots where not trained for that nor was anything mentioned of that in the manual of the plane.
Shareholders don't have to care about the company, it's all about the right time to sell and invest into another one. Today's profits are way more important than tomorrow's.
I don't believe that this plane is going to be any less comfortable than a cramped 10-abreast 777, but the main point is that directness beats comfort 9 out of 10 times. When I tell people that I chose to fly long haul via Paris with Air France instead of taking the direct Lufthansa flight for the same price because I find Air France way more comfortable, people are most of the times stunned and tell me that for them to choose a connecting flight over a direct one, the price would have to be significantly lower. I really don't understand the aversion that people have against connecting flights but the fact of the matter is that an airline offering point-to-point connections to Berlin, Hamburg, Lyon, Milan, Brussels and other similarly important cities that are at the moment underserved by long haul flights will gain significant market share because passengers are willing to accept higher prices and less comfort for a direct flight.
And the problem just became a lot bigger...ladies & gents...the a321xlr achieved certification and entry to service is expected towards the of the summer...
Seeing as the 797 is at least a decade away from entering service, Boeing will have to produce something significantly better than the 321xlr. Airlines won't wait 10 years on a promise.
The A321LR/XLR is a problem for Boeing . The B737 product is stuck in a rut with little room for comparable development . Boeing should have been at the drawing board 10 years ago with a B737 replacement .
They had one, the B757. New engines possible because plenty of rooms under the wings, and A321XLR wouldn't even exist. But Boeing management saw short term, killed the B757, and pushed the B737 to the max and eventually the crash
@@CaptainDangeax The point you're missing is that the 757 is too big for many 737 routes, hence it wouldn't work as a replacement. And the 757 and 737 are different type ratings, unlike the A321XLR and A320.
Before Boeing can think about launching a new aircraft model they need to seriously focus on their internal quality control problems. Airbus is the crear winner here for many years to come.
fully agree - as a viewer, you don't get any additional information from watching the video - it might as well be an audio file. Definitely room for improvement!
He probably means the shot of the airbus beluga when you were talking about larger planes. Because the airbus beluga is not for passengers is it. I would call that a random piece of footage
I wonder if its performance is as good as the 757? Could it be used at airports with shorter runways for long distance flights? An example, Chicago Midway MDW?
lets not forget about runway performance, I have flown both A321NEO and the MAX 9. Well the MAX flys like a brick and the NEO flys like a wide body and can takeoff and land on runways the MAX can only dream about using with a full load.
Just restart the 757 program again, Boeing. Your company has suffered such a devastating brain drain in engineering talent that your 797 or NMA project will be at least a decade away.
That would not really be a viable solution. The 757 facilities are gone for more than 10 years, hence a completely new industrial chain would be built, which is a very expensive undertaking. Additionally, whatever the updated 757 would look like, a new type certificate would required, with functions and regulatory requirements that have been issued/added since the type certificate of the 757 was issued. Due to that an updated 757 development is likely not much less expensive than developing a new aircraft from scratch.
@@MattBlue The 797 should be a modern successor of the 737 and 757 together. Boeing urgently needs a new single-aisle plane as their cash cow, instead of still producing the nose section of the 707 as it is done in the 737.
@@mairhart As I stated, Boeing needs a newly designed narrow-body plane. One could replace both the 737 and the 757. But it would be odd to build the 757 again, as the production lines no longer exist and would require significant facelifting.
This A321XLR will be very hard for Boeing to do something in order compete with Airbus. The 737 has now a very bad image and Boeing the same. Results of their terrible administration and lack of plans like Airbus did. A replacement for the 757 was obvious but they have prefered. not to see that. The industry now is under Airbus rules...
Yes, but that's nothing new. A lot of airplanes have one of their fuel tanks in the centre wing box - the piece of the complete wing structure that is connecting the two wings together. That centre wing box is in turn connected to the lower part of the fuselage, with a part of the cabin above it. Since it is essentially a hollow box, its inerior space can be used for eg retracted landing gear - and a fuel tank. Any passenger sitting "at the wings" (above the centre wing box) is sitting on top of a fuel tank.
@@k9killer221 well, some undeserving kids start a new channel, upload some popular video with a green screen, and get millions of views right off the bat, and that's why i said what i did
@@gvflyer4079 i disagree, it is all down to legroom and seat comfort. I do not see it makes any difference how many aisles a plane has regarding comfort.
@@simonbarber2098 seat comfort matters for sure. But there are less aisle seats available. Less room to stand up for a few minutes on a long haul flight to stretch. Fewer lavs to use. Also, these 320’s fly at .78 to .80 vs the A350 or 787 fly at .85. That matters on long haul. The 350 and 787 have better pressurization (lower cabin altitude) which is less fatigue. And the larger airplanes are generally better in minor turbulence which gives a smoother ride to be able to sleep. It all matters on long haul. Not just the seat.
@@gvflyer4079You are forgetting the most important point. The A321XLR improves the options of flying point to point. I would prefer the option of flying direct any day of the week.
@@gvflyer4079 thats true but for me you can still get up on a single aisle althought it is less convenient. For me just going to the lavatory is enough I do not need additional walk rounds. I guess we all have different tastes and desires when we travel, does not make either of us wrong. With this aircraft you have the choice to travel long haul single aisle, if you do not like that stick to a wide body option.
Boeing suffers from the usual American problem, short termism, we want results NOW, not next year, NOW, cut corners and get results NOW, what about safety? What's safety got to do with it?
I certainly will not fly boeing mostly on their carry on when the aircraft came out of the sky. but they do not warrant passengers for their greed and poor workmanship so just tell them to fk off.
Yea, but as a passenger it's just not as comfortable being crammed into slimmer, one aisle planes for longer haul trips. It's bad enough as on shorter routes as it is. Everybody celebrating this new technology without taking passenger comfort into consideration. For airlines, it's all about the money. They couldn't care less about the level of service they provide (most of the time. There are exceptions).
I've flown on 757s across the Atlantic, both ways, multiple times. It's not awful, but not great. Just like big-boy planes, in economy it does not matter how big the plane is, what matters is how the airline configures its planes. 28" pitch and narrow seats mean misery whether a 321XLR or A380.
You can still just choose an airline operating widebodies. Or you can have a stopover in Greenland if you hate long flights. Nuuk's new international airport is set to open in November.
You may have amnesia, the world remembered when the B787 sent the first A350 back to the drawing board,to come up with what they have now. Boeing will be back with a new airplane,in the near future. The future belongs to Boeing with the new airplane to replace A321s.
Talk about repeat yourself! You really need to pay more attention of how many times you repeat the same thing! And also grammar aircraft is for single and plural there is no S on the end of aircraft it’s bad enough listening to Americans calling aeroplanes!!! Airplanes! and some British people are starting to call them that instead of aeroplanes, otherwise not a bad video. Could’ve at least saved three minutes on your video if you didn’t repeat.
shh.... it's all just to sell air craft and make money. for both of them. Efficient and new aircraft at that but in the end it is for profits as is to be expected