Emirates President Thinks Boeing Overreacted To The A321XLR
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- The rivalry between Boeing and Airbus has seen tit-for-tat moves on a number of occasions throughout history. Boeing’s hasty launch of the 737 MAX following Airbus’ neo reveal is just one example. Sir Tim Clark, president of Emirates and one of the world’s most respected aviation veterans, thinks Boeing has spent too long eyeing what Airbus is doing, instead of listening to what the market needs.
Article link: simpleflying.c...
White aircraft drawings from Norebbo.com
Video sources:
Emirates DAS • Dubai Airshow 2021 | E...
Airbus historical first flights A300 A310 A330 A340 • Airbus historical firs...
777 history • 777's proud past, bril...
747 Historical Everett Boeing • Boeing's Everett Site ...
747 Pan Am • The World’s Best Pan A...
737 MAX 10 • The New Boeing 737 MAX 10
737 MAX Boeing • New Boeing 737 MAX
737 MAX Boeing Demo • Video
737 MAX MCAS • Boeing 737 MAX Return ...
787-10 and 737 MAX 9 Boeing • Boeing 787-10 Dreamlin...
A380 Emirates Tim Clark • Emirates President Tim...
737 MAX 8 LOT www.youtube.co...
Simple Flying:
Visit our website where we publish 150-200 news stories per week: simpleflying.com/
Listen to our weekly podcast: simpleflying.c...
Download our iOS & Android app: simpleflying.c...
Daily email digest sign up: simpleflying.c...
Check out our second UA-cam channel: / @longhaulbysimpleflying
Follow us on social media:
Instagram: / simpleflyingnews
Twitter: / simple_flying
Facebook: / simpleflyingnews
Linkedin: / 33222643
#aviation #flight #avgeek #airlines #flying
Boeing had their chance with updating the 757. No 737 could ever match what the 757 brings to the table.
I think we praise the 757 too much. It has its own issues.
@@christopherwarsh there’s never “too much” praising 757 s here😂
The 757 ship has sailed long ago, too long. But yes it would have been perfect.
Sure 757 with natural fibeer composite on some parts and GE engine or Pratt engine and pretty stewardess and pilot
Personally, I really like the 757! It’s a really nice aircraft, it’s sad that they don’t want to update it because I’m sure it would’ve been a success
I agree. Boeing has been so worried about others, they forgot how to clean their own house. Every day we hear of another Boeing problem. Air Bus has them too, but not to the extent we hear about Boeing. The Max affair should have been a huge embarrassment or the garbage left in Air Force refueling planes or the problems with the 777x or 787, but there doesn't seem to be anyone who honestly cares beyond their own paycheck. Boeing needs a top down management replacement plan. Complacency runs the company now. It will take drastic efforts to subdue it.
I can see the 129 "LIKE" people lining up to come up with negative about Boeing , my feelings is a team of Airbus fans ready to ..........
Boeing was always great till the purchase of Mcdonald douglas. Lol most of management is fron Douglas so Boeing as inherited the problem that Douglas had. Until they let them go Boeing will never be great again.
@@monnidesmonnides8554 Sorry, that won't wash, Boeing is a US strategic asset being destroyed by its management. Something needs to give here.
153 comments this BS, 153 different computers address with one or two commentator
@@monnidesmonnides8554 Do you have anything intelligent to say or do you just attack the posters?
To be fair, Boeing have been complacent in the short - mid range market since the NG range.
"Ah, we'll just put winglets on it." "Ah, we'll just stap bigger engines to it and round off the bottom." "Ah, we'll just stretch it again."
How long did they seriously believe they were going to be able to bolt new stuff onto a 60 year old airframe and think that would do?!
They *should* *have* started development of the 737 replacement shortly after the A320 launched (1987 - 1993 timeframe), but their "that'll do" attitude towards their biggest market meant their 20 year head-start got eaten away by an arguably better aircraft.
If they'd started development of the replacement when they should have; later, when Airbus announced the NEO, Boeing wouldn't have been caught with their pants around their ankles playing with themselves.
Well the airlines were complacent aswell, they’re the ones who truly call the shots.
@@CARBONHAWK1 So do we blame the customer ? Is it my fault your product does not meet your claims?
@@bobdevreeze4741 Absolutely not. Airbus fixed all Finnair planes for free from 2016- 2019(A350 surfacing). I can't say much about Qatar since it seems to be a legal battle and I really can't say anything about Boeing since the amount of issues is so great.
@@toms5996 The fixes Airbus made to Finnair's planes they also offered to every other affected airline, including Qatar. Every airline Airbus offered the fixes to was satisfied with them except for Qatar, who would not accept any solution Airbus offered them as they continued to misrepresent this purely cosmetic issue as an airworthiness one. Understandably, Airbus was not happy and eventually they had enough and sought legal assessment
There isn’t that many ways to make a single aisle short-medium haul airliner
I agree with Tom Clark. I worked for Boeing for 43 years including time in marketing and flight test. I watched Boeing study the NMA/MMA. Boeing could never make a good business case that would lead to a market launch. When CFM launched the new A320 engine, CFM was keen to put it on the 737. The problem was the fan diameter really pushed the 737 limit. Larger fans are more efficient. One market advantage the 737 has over the A320 is the height of the baggage compartment. The 737 can be loaded with the baggage handlers standing on the ground. the A320 requires a cargo loader. This is why Boeing will never increase the length of the landing gear to accommodate larger fans and this is the 737 limit. Airbus on the other hand is still using the same basic A320 wing that was originally designed. It has been strengthened and the fuel capacity brought to the maximum, but the A320 wing is fuel capacity limited. To get around this Airbus has increased A320 range by adding fuel under the floors. The A321XLR has marginal cargo capacity. It can handle passenger baggage, but there is very little room left for an airline to sell as cargo space. Both the 737 and the A320 are at the limits of their designs. Airbus and Boeing both know this. All it is going to take is for one of the manufacturers to flinch and go first into the mid market size. The other will follow and build an airplane just a little better and own the market. This is how the high stakes jet game is played. Invest your money and take your chances.
There's a complication* for Boeing, however. Since the inimitable management of Harry Stonecipher, Boeing CAC is a financial entity more than an airplane company. Old goals were to design and build airplanes that were safe and met carriers' needs. Harry changed all that. He made Boeing a company whose first priority was the value of the common stock tomorrow morning. The Harvard and Wharton business school way. Money is everything. I saw it for years. If you had two engineers or managers, one far better than the other, you encouraged the higher salary one to retire. (No, I never worked for Boeing. I watched them closely from the distance of being a supplier to them.) And, I watched Stonecipher move the headquarters to Chicago and far away from where the manufacturing and engineering were being done. These generals weren't going to be bothered with what was going on at the battle lines. Shareholders don't care or understand high-bypass fan engines; they understand share prices, this morning.
....
*The complication is this: Boeing CAC has two mandates to follow to survive. One is to raise its stock prices and probably try be sold to foreign investors. The other is to displace the financial managers (who have little idea how to design and build a safe airplane -- NO INTUITION) with management experienced in managing both priorities. That's twice as hard, and tricky as hell. To do this, management has to move with certainty and speed. Financial managers are clueless as to this. Further, through the 737MAX crisis, Boeing showed no tendency to change its management priorities. They just repainted the headquarters walls a slightly cleaner shade of currency-green, as it were.
It is also the darling, beloved Jack Welch way; it looks like the Welch way is working until it doesn't. Then, you realize that he has liquidated the company to show a profit.
Boeing's top management are still, first, last, and foremost, bean counters.
@@jimshaw899 Jim, sounds like you didn't like Harry. Not many people did, but he is old news. Harry was a McDonnel Douglas guy. He got pissed and retired when Phil Condit was made CEO. Then Phil got fired because of trouble with his secretary, the board brought Harry back to run the company. He caused a lot of problems with Boeing's traditional market strategy. Boeing was playing fast an loose with paper airplanes, remember the Sonic Cruiser? This time period was horrible. My day started working for Boeing in 1959 and I've lived all of my life on Boeing paychecks. Back to Stonecipher, when he was at Mac Dac they came up with the MD-12 (4 engine copy of the 747) and the MD-13 (757 copy, but I might have those reversed). AvWeek editorial said who would get on an MD-13 when they could ride on a 777? This is about lucky numbers and flying.
I really worried Boeing wouldn't survive everything that was going on. Then Stonecipher got in trouble with some lower ranking female managers. Hmm, maybe a way to get rid of bad manager? We will never know. But then the Sonic Cruiser became the 7E7 that looked a lot like the 7J7 from the mid 80s. And no, the 7J7's final version dropped the prop fans for ultra high bypass turbo fans mounted under the wing. It also maintained the high Japanese manufacturing content.
I can understand how vendors would be unhappy with the Boeing bean counters. Back in those days major suppliers were making higher margins off of their products than Boeing was. On top of that Boeing was holding all of the cost risk and the vendors margins were guaranteed. The 787 brought shared risk into the vendor contracting. Of the 128 major contractors in the 787 program about 90 of them failed to perform and either went out of business or the vendors consolidated. The 787 is still plagued with poor vendor performance. That is why deliveries were stopped this year.
Don't be bitter, it is just business.
@@jimpalmer1969 I'm not bitter. My company and my job prospered after Boeing pivoted from doing most everything itself to placing purchase orders for most of the new airplanes. And I was never dependent on Boeing for a living. I only point out Stonecipher because he represented Boeing's pivotal management change from airplane company to a Wall Street bank. I knew Stonecipher well from before Boeing, when he was CEO of Sundstrand. There, he did what bean counters do: he fluffed up the balance sheets and sold the company.
Selling the company is much easier than managing it to longterm success. Mulally was the antithesis of a bean counter. My company worked with him on the 777 development, which resulted in a success. Late? Over budget? Overlay that with the 787 development and certification. And the MAX debacle. And the South Carolina factory which seems unable to deliver airplanes with airworthiness certificates.
Buy this man a 🍺 🍻
In the 1980s and early 90s, Boeing was proactive and aggressive in developing a product line tailored to the market demands. The 737NG, 747-400, 757, 767 and 777 in that era. It’s the MD/Boeing merger, and subsequent corporate culture shift to a dumpster fire, where they began bean counting, being complacent, and too conservative.
Couldnt agree more. They've got what is, effectively, a government guarentee, it doesn't need pointing out that this doesn't really drive an efficient, innovative, and accountable culture
Agreed; however, the 787 was hardly conservative.
@@jameshayward8533 racist
@@Gulzeee shut up
@@Therealprinceofcobh shut you a
To think that the MD/ Boeing merger hurt Boeing so much.
Boeing should have already had a viable NMA in production. The 757 should have had a second iteration because the a321 was the closest competitor to it and it's still in production and selling tho the 757 performance is better than the a321. The argument that the 757 was costly to produce is null simply because since its first flight there have been many advancements in aircraft production. They can really bring the aircraft back from the dead if they wanted to. Update the wings and engines as well as avionics and watch the range increase. The fuel tanks are already bigger than the A321.
Rebuilding the 757 as it was with new wings etc would be almost as costly as simply developing a whole new aircraft thats even more efficient than the A321neo. Things would look different If the production line was still intact. In terms of Performance and Range a simple re-engine of the 757 as it is would beat the A321XLR in terms of Performance and Range HANDSDOWN. But this ship has sailed 15-20 years ago.
The main reason they DIDN'T update B757 is because it's not as efficient as A321XLR.
Its also have commonality problems with B737MAX. A321XLR is basically just another A321neo. They are free upgrade without any extra costs.
@@nntflow7058 not true. The A321XLR is a brandnew iteration of the A321. The 757 production line ended in 2004. I highly doubt anyone at Airbus considered stretching the legs of the A321 back in 2004.
@@antonyh37 Neither Joe Sutter expected his 737 to have more than twice the capacity now, and yet here we are.
Well not quiet althoughI agree with you the ending of Building the 757 was crazy and Boeing scored an Own Goal, A 757 NEO would possibly be still selling to day .
At this point Boeing is following similar steps as McDonell Douglas did at their moment, relaunching older airframes (rushed) whenever a competitor update or showing a new design instead of building new aircraft that can be versatile enough to compete in different sections of the market
Just remember what was the reason to create MD-80/717 from the DC-9 or MD-11 from the DC-10
When Alan Mulally, whose many contributions included directing development of the superb 777, finally gave up and left for Ford, we knew the ship was going down. I personally think it's too late for Boeing, but I'd love to be proved wrong.
Alan Mulally was a premiere leader. The 777 program was a model of teamwork and efficiency lead by him. If only the 787 program had the same process.
@@cskvision Yes it was premiere, development only had a 50% cost over run.
Don't forget the 787. It killed the A380, pushing the development of commercial aviation further than anything since the introduction of the jet engine.
100% so. The T7 was indeed superb. I wonder if and when Boeing will see such good days again.
I do think they could come back but Now is the time to get things moving,
My guess is that Boeing was eyeing the NMA as a composite materials based airliner like the 787. However seeing that the ideal scenario was to use aluminum with composite wings as they're doing with the 777-X, then reduce weight by using lighter materials elsewhere, what we may end up seeing is an update on the 757 and 767, but with a modern engine and modern interior.
Yeah I think so too… but Airbus also has used composite wings on aluminum fuselage for decades now so I am I intrigued to see how Boeing could do it
Yes, Boeing has been way too insecure. They tried to block the sale of Bombardier's C-Series aircraft in the US because they were worried that it would compete with the B737. They made certain accusations and a huge import duty was placed on the C-Series by the US government. Without going into details, the US Trade Commission eventually ruled in favor of Bombardier, but the damage was done.
The delay cost Bombardier many sales and is one of the reasons the company was eventually forced to practically hand over their aircraft to Airbus (now called the A220). So not only did Boeing fail to block the C-Series/A220, but they pissed off the Canadian government. In looking to award a multibillion dollar contract to replace their current fighter fleet, Boeing's actions against Canada is one of the reasons they have been disqualified from the running. Boeing's insecurity and bad decisions keep coming to bite them.
The 767 (cargo) production line is still intact, and the 757 and 767 were built at the same time, design and technology. I don’t understand why they can’t make a 757 Max with the 767 cargo assembly
The Boeing 757 has outdated aerodynamics, but it's worth a try. For example, they can change the wing. Just like Boeing 747-8
He hit the nail directly on the head. The Boeing I remember as a kid is no more. It's like they lost their inspiration and just shoot for numbers. Airbus has overtaken them.
Well, no wonder he's the director of Emirates. He has a clear mind and knows what he wants and what the airline needs.
Well, of course Clark will comment mainly on the longhaul market, as that is where Emirates is at home. However, the most ordered and delivered models are the narrow body ones and yes, Boeing has dropped the ball there quite badly. Which then allowed Airbus to get some other products in the pipeline that are actually quite good, although not without problems of their own. And Airbus has done a nearly revolutionary thing in the pandemic by simply insisting on its contracts forcing airlines to take delivery of their ordered stock or pay huge sums for deferral, something neither manufacturer dared to do in previous crisis. Which gave Airbus quite a big cash flow advantage while Boeing at the same time still had to grapple with the Max crisis.
While Boeing’s cashflow came courtesy of US Govt bailout….
@@gregmorgan8350 Bahaha!
Boeing was capable of building great airplanes in the previous cycle before the MAX. I think the B757 and B767 are close to the perfect airplane. Delta agrees, they are planning on keeping theirs until some of them are 30yrs old. They have completely new interiors that make them seem like they are a newly delivered airplane. If only Boeing could accomplish the same today, but sadly the people that made them great are gone, replaced with lower paid workers and they seem to have a problem with Quality Control as well as some poor Engineering.
Gotta love Tim Clark getting any little dig in at Boeing he can currently 😂 they clearly pissed him off with the 777x delays
Anybody who thinks there’s life in the 737 product going forward is doing so only because there’s no alternative aside from the fully booked A320 series. The Boeing is inferior & archaic in every respect to the Airbus, except journeys less than 750nm where it’s seat costs are lower on the Max 8. And there is now talk of Airbus putting plans in motion to replace the A320 & stretch the A220 to a 500 series. I see Boeing fading away very slowly.
Boeing is not fading away. Wait for the future Boeing's 777x and nma will be able to compete with Airbus and this can change Boeing's problems.
@@richamandhotra1748 I hope so. Boeing just need to get back to their roots of making great aircraft free of bean counters 👍
@@richamandhotra1748 " Wait for the future Boeing's 777x " what you mean like the airlines are having to do for the original 777X ? already three years behind schedule. And don't expect to see a Boeing NMA this side of the 30's
"The Max had amazingly good credentials..."
Only because BA had the FAA in their pocket. Now it has cost them $20+ billion and regulators won't certify the 777X until it is done right (10 years for EIS for a derivative) and the 787 is a mess and won't make a profit. Beancounters running the show
BA?
@@mmcbey1401 Stock ticker for Boeing
I mean...he's not wrong
Boeing has made bad decisions since the 787 program. That program was so problematic and difficult to get going that it scarred them. The MAX should never have existed - should have been a clean slate. Further, something to replace 757-767 is overdue, the so called NMA. Neither have happened. The MAX will do okay but Airbus is killing it in the market and they now have the lower size A220 to clean up orders on the smaller end as well while Boeing is still wondering what to do. Now is the time for a bold rethink, but I don't see it coming.
Unfortunately they couldn't. Basically Airbus checkmated them by launching A320NEO at the time they're still busying with 787 issues. Airlines are not gonna wait a decade for a new jet, that may or may not perform a few percentage better.
Their original plan was to adopt 787 technologies into the Y1 program, and focus on production innovations. But it seems like 787 is yet ironed out up to now.
Sounds like he hit it on the head. Not overly bashing Boeing but highlighting critical areas and in a way that was still encouraging.
I think Boeing needs an industry veteran like Tim Clark to steer them in the right path.
The management at the moment is all technical & sales oriented.
If Airbus announced a A220-500, and that they were replacing the the larger A320/21 with a new aircraft or re-winged and lengthened A322 (with more range), I think Boeing would be in a really sticky position
Airbus risking cannibalizing it’s own fleet
Stretched A220 would just be the A320neo with a different design tho?
Pablo Herasme Either you cannibalize your own product or somebody else will do it for you. Cannibalizing your own product is not a problem with proper price segmentation. If you have higher margin product cannibalizing a lower margin product then that is a very good thing your profits will be going up.
Agreed, this is why Airbus is ramping up 320 production now so they can do an A220-500 later.
Exactly. If Airbus introduced A322 or A220 NG aircraft with higher capacity and range, so no room for Boeing 757 NG aircraft or 797 model aircraft.
When you are focused on the bottom line you don't listen to the market! Tim Clark is right on many things but he doesn't highlight the greediness of Boeing management.
He can only know so much. At best, he can only provide insight as a Boeing customer. Anything more detailed, we would need an insider, or a former employee, preferably in higher management rank.
Well, the media isn't helping Boeing as much as they aren't helping themselves. Multiple news articles about how the a321 XLR will change the world aren't gonna do Boeing any favours. Nonetheless, Sir Tim make a fair point, but Boeing hasn't rushed to produce any A321 XLR rival yet, even when the Airbus was launched. I think the video title should be "Boeing Overreacted to the A320neo family", cause that is definitely true.
Boeing have really lost their way. They aren’t even an engineering giant on some projects - the B787 was co designed and manufactured with Mitsubishi and heavily outsourced, it was as American as an Airbus built in Mobile Alabama. Not only did they sell themselves out, the outsourcing totally backfired and led to more issues, costs and delays. The project cost so much that it only broke even after selling 1000 jets. Not very successful really for Boeing at all.
For the most revolutionary jet in modern history, breaking even after 1000 jets was to be expected.
@@Token_Nerd it obviously isn’t revolutionary for this decade even. It was vastly over budget and Boeing did little of the leg work compared to other models. It was a lesson to all. The A380 broke even at around 200 aircraft, that was far more revolutionary than the B787 and it used new technologies, particularly increased use of composites also and helped lead to the systems on the A350.
@@Horizon301. The 787 was the first commercial majority composite airliner, the first with a bleed-less air system, the first with majority composite jet engines, the first to move towards fully electronic systems...even the A350 didn't advance nearly as much as the 787 did.
Also, you're high if you think the a380 broke even. That program cost was over 25 billion euros. If each plane costs 300 million Euros, the program would need to sell at least 84 A380s assuming all the revenue from those sales went to development costs. Considering that a 787, a plane less than 2/5ths the size costs 150 million euros, of which, less than 1/10th goes to development costs, had to sell over 1000 airplanes to break even, there's absolutely no way in hell that the A380 made any money for Airbus.
@@Token_Nerd you do realise that they have sold over 200 A380’s right? It broke even before production ended. That cost of development was what the B787 should have cost, that’s the whole point of outsourcing however it backfired massively. New Boeing leadership acknowledges this. In the UK, this is used as an example regarding how much of the aircraft isn’t actually sourced from the US. It’s as foreign as an Airbus!
‘Overreacted’ is a wrong summary of what’s being said, instead he says Boeing should get out of reacting at all and have a proper customer focused strategy instead. Have the eye on the ball, not the other team. And he gives Boeing two years to get their act together. I’m surprised he didn’t slide in a comment about quality control to round it up, but perhaps that would tax even his way of saying things politely.
Tim Clark is absolutely right he know the business better than me and he is correct.
Isn't that the truth. Boeing didn't need the max but they got nervous and they've been paying for it since that damn 737 max got certified. They should have just made a new nma, FSA and then they would be in a much better position but you live you learn and even titans stumble and fall.
Actually boeing problem started when American airlines order the a320ceo and a320neos and because of that they rushed this plane to pick up profit slack when they could have created these new aircraft and be unquestionably ahead in their product line up.
@@brycestewart7228 maybe they shouldn’t have told the US3 to shove it when they asked for a 757 replacement 🤷♂️ Boeing prioritized Asian markets over US markets and now they’re paying the price. They made their bed they can sleep in it.
@@adub1300 they would have won with both markets with the new aircraft but they again wanted a quick turnaround profit and reengineering the 737 again was the way they went. Yeah they might have prioritized the asian market but they were still just trying to stay ahead of Airbus and they failed do to complacency and greed.
Isn't there a tiny business problem here of losing a lot of money (and market share) while the NMA was being developed (and it wouldn't be on time)?
@@gbsccfig they probably would have lost some customers initially but think of it like this, at the time Boeing products spoke for themselves. They might have even had people wait for their product if they thought it was the best option or get leased aircraft or Airbus products to fill the void while wait. It's the gamble of the industry, I just feel at that boeing chose wrong, had poor oversight or intentional looked the other way and agreed and it just created what you see now as them playing catch up and also having problem after problem.
Direct and to the point
Tim Clark should be CEO of Boeing
Clark is simply trying to goad both Boeing and Airbus into competing (and spending $$) to drive down his purchasing costs.
The most likely motive for him to say this... yes.
He doesn't need another Boeing, he needs a bargaining chip.
@@Rockstone1969 Old saying "follow the money"...........
PRECISELY
They screwed the pooch on the 757 replacement.
Sir Tim Clark is right on point. Boeing is trying to fight Airbus toe to toe, which they cant. A350-1000 has way more mileage compared to any boeing aircraft. They are the team to beat right now.
Tim Clark is spot on. Boeing has 'lost the plot' ! Please don't mention NMA/797 I'm simply bored of it even being mentioned now. Boeing have squandered an obvious opportunity. Airbus OTOH played their hand with consummated professionalism.
Well..... if there's anyone who knows this business well, it's Sir Tim Clarke and he's right more often than not.
Sir Clark speaks the pragmatic truth in an industry rife with spin and PR.
Timely introduction of the 777 X ? It's years behind introduction already ! and Boeing haven't given genuine communication and commitment to Emirates and other airlines when they can expect it .
Boeing slowed down the 777-9 development to avoid the issues that plagued the 787 and 737 MAX. They want to make sure the 777-9 is actually viable for airline service when the first planes are delivered in the late fall of 2023.
@@Sacto1654 Boeing was FORCED to slow down - the FAA was never going to rubber stamp what BA wanted, after the Max debacle
Boeing thinks they should be able to tell the airlines what to buy. They should ask the airlines what they should build.
Slightly of topic. What about a blown up double decker a350/777 twin engine version?
He is pretty spot on.
Makes sense except that if Clark was suggesting that Boeing was looking too much at the competition than what the market wanted, wouldn't that be the same since it is inferred that Airbus was looking at what the market wanted?
Yea ikr just because airbus made it it doesn't mean that Boeing needs to do another, They should've just sticked with the NMA and boeing getting the upper hand as airbus doesnt have a NMA with good capacity...
I think Clark is eyeing the Boeing CEO position
Boeing needs to get rid of the bean counters and focus on making great aircraft again.
He is absolutely right. Keep the eye on the ball, not what others are doing
The reason of Boeing's mistakes are simple. It paid to acquire the failing MD (at least in the commercial aviation side of the business) and MD's management instead took over the company. It's managed then just like MD. That's why the result is now just like MD.
He should run Boeing
When Clark speaks people should listen
I have been saying this for quite a while now: Boeing should have been developing a replacement for the 737 years ago, one variant would also fit the MMA market, to replace the B757, like the Airbus A321 XLR does. Extending the B737 that long is a mistake to my view, especially rushing a variant to the market, which caused 2 disasters. The same occurred at Airbus (minus the disasters) when they tried to extend the A330 when the market really needed a completely new Airframe, which they eventually did with the A350. As John Leahy (Airbus) famously said then: « we’ve been caught napping ». Boeing is in a decade (at least) long nap for what its single aisle airliner should be.
They really need the NMA. the 737 is already been outsold by the A320 series. Boeing has kinda lost a lot to airbus.
They lost after the 737 MAX scandal
A321xlr is a game changer.narrow body long range some thing that was missing in the market.
Boeing problem started when they canceled the 757 without a true replacement. Instead designing a new aircraft or updated version of the 757, they rather MAX out a plane design form 50+ years ago to save millions. It worked for the 747 right, why not the 737. Oh so how bad mistaken
Tim Clark is right
Boeing deserves what they are dealing with today. They only cared about profit and shareholders instead of safety and quality matters. So Airbus is number one. And making good money with competitive and qualitative aircrafts. But things can change. Except the fact that Boeing has a very big debt.
Well, "a timely introduction of the 777X" is certainly too late already. Right now Boeing needs to reconsider its now not-so-great culture, get their actual inventory to work and then, in years, deliver new planes that don't fall out of the skies because someone didn't care or got greedy.
I was waiting for the width so the passenger wants a wide body. You didn’t compare the two.
In addition to replacing a good deal of the top brass, Boeing also needs to overhaul the board of directors.
They all have much bigger questions to consider now - where does the future of aviation go with the climate emergency. New technologies and changing customer demands (particularly in the corporate customer side of the market).
I'm guessing existing and future turbofans powered by 100% SAF will play a big part in the future of Aviation 👌
Not surprising that R&D suffered at Boeing when the main focus is short term shareholder Wall St. driven results.
Tim Clark nailed it!
Sir Tim, is one of the most respected,so i totally agree with his analysis....
The USA needs a new aircraft builder.
I find it ironic that a president of an airline that flies exclusively wide body aircraft is making such comments about narrow body aircraft…
It's an easier case to make the Underreacted. They have lost huge market share in the narrow body market by not developing a new platform.
But yet, they are gaining a lot of it back because Boeing can offer bigger discounts than what Airbus can with the A320neo family.
@@Sacto1654 No. Airbus has only increased it's lead in the backlog. Not even close anymore with the 320 series now almost twice the sales.
@@johniii8147 But now Airbus needs to start bumping up production at their facilities. They can't keep up even with four assembly lines going full blast.
@@Sacto1654 They have plans in place to do so. They are currently producing 45 a month and go to over 60 by 2023 and maybe as high as 70. There has been push back on the 70 number, but over 60 seems pretty firm
@@johniii8147 It's going to be interesting to see if both the Toulouse and Hamburg lines start producing the A321LR and A321XLR versions, especially given the massive need to replace all those aging 757's out there.
Airbus should launch the A322 with LR and XLR versions. That would kill the NMA forever
Oh ok
Easier said than done. The thing about the A32X series is that it’s essentially the same wings and fuselage (the latter stretched or shrunk for the mission). An A322 would be too long of a fuselage for the A320 wings so it would need different engines or longer wings, which would make it its own family of jets rather than part of the A32X line.
So apart from “that” Mrs Lincoln enjoyed the play?
If I'm Boeing, I would begin a study of a possibility of creating a new clean design of the 767 and 757, seriously!. Forget 797 as the impending 777X has that capacity covered. Majority of airlines are looking towards 250-300 capacity aircraft with good economics. Sufficient payload and range to bring profit. Key is hub-to-hub type of range. I could see the A321XLR will succeed in this but it too has limited to only within 200-230 seats
He’s not wrong tho.
Boeing also tried to snitch and Tripp bombardier with the CS300.
He is absolutely correct
Mr. Clark is right, he should be hired to run Boeing for a short contract to get things right there.
He was right, Boeing competes against Airbus. Meanwhile, Airbus competes against the needs of the airlines and the demands.
Leave it to the bean counters to decide, to maximise short term shareholder value.... Perfect
His comments are spot on. Boeing needs to fix itself and create a new niche aircraft.
I hope Boeing has learned that profits before design, engineering and safety will kill lots of people and future profits. It will take years to reverse the damage that has been done.
Tim is right about 37MAX. However it helps for planes not to crash.
"Flowers don't compete with other flowers- they simply bloom"!
Smart , knowledgeable , excellent .
I totally agree. What Boeing did was silly. The max was just fine. But when Boeing decided to rush things, they took a sad turn for the worst. I will never fly on the max unless the 737 is customized where that crazy software is removed. Can't imagine what it's like being inside of a jet knowing it's about to crash oh my goodness. Very very nice. Please keep coming out with more vlogs!!
When Airbus introduced the 320 NEO, pundits all agree Boeing could not respond in kind, due to the short landing gear. I think Boeing's financial managers just told the engineers : do it nevertheless, hush-hush with the aerodynamic problems and keep a complete commonality with the NG, what in the end caused the crashes
I think Boeing needs to stop riding their legacy and start to to lead the industry again.
I do not agree since on bare specs Airbus has the technologically more advanced and more fuel economic a. Boeing had no other option than to follow. The possible direction of KLM towards the airbus 321 for the 737 replacement might be exemplary. Within the AF-KLM group there is a lot of experience with both types though the older variants.
Long term strategy, not short term tactics/reactions win wars. Hopefully Boeing understands that now.
Clarks comments are based on market facts. Boeing CEO's attitude was based exclusively on his bonus, which was set in a wrong manner. Boeing did not have the financial power to develop a new airplane, because de CEO was using all financial resources to buy back Boeing shares as his bonus was based almost exclusively on the share price. In fact, it is because the board set the wrong incentives that Boeing is in such a situation. How did Boeing manage in 2011 to be surprised by Airbus announcement conerning the 3XX NEO and XLR?
They did overreact, yes.
We all carry our flaws on our backs plain for others to see, but not visible to ourselves.
Maybe Boeing should develop new aircraft in 150-250 seat capacity to fill the short-medium haul, high capacity route. This range is suited for Asia Pacific market where the capacity is high during pre-pandemic period. The 737 is long overdue for revamp towards flight comfort, wireless multimedia system, and fuel efficiency.
They should have re-engined the 757
Although both companies are extremely good!
In my honest opinion, I think Boeing specializes in making very good long haul aircrafts (787, 747, 777X) , where as Airbus specializes in making amazing short haul aircrafts (a320 family).
the a350 and 330 are also great
@@yannisl8259 a330 too loud. did not like it.
A350 and 777 are surprisingly quiet
So true👏👏👏👏👏👏
I would have to put a380 and a350 on a passengers prospective.a380 is so quiet and comfort amazing for a passenger
Boeing in a nutshell: The problem of being faster than light is that you live in darkness (or atleast we can say that for the cockpit of the 777x)
You can't say that about Boeing Starliner though.
Spot on !
Boeing has lost all of its reputation, sadly. Maybe it will retored 10 years from now.
What about a re-engined 757
Would that be useful ? Surely that would be useful
Yeah, like they did on the 737. Huge succes.
Flying planes into the ground I would say is a pretty big over-reaction.
My $0.02 - I don't think blaming Boeing for watching what Airbus was doing, was the sole problem. Their selling out safety over profits is the bigger problem, and something that will haunt them for ages. The lack of any management skill and accountability, and the scapegoating, is a far bigger problem. If nobody will tolerate mistakes, or admit to mistakes, then they cannot timeously be identified and corrected and/or mitigated. The entire corporate culture in my opinion is sub-par at the moment.... And this starts at the top. Right up at the top. (oh and being in bed with the FAA didn't help).
I don't see any issue with Boeing. Airbus may have opened a market with the A321XLR, but Boeing has several others, specially with the 787.
Emirates is a big and important Customer but Emirates is not „the Market“ …
Boeing's biggest mistake was was designing the 757 for the medium plane market along with the 767, when it should have been developed as a future proof 737 replacement. The 737 has the same fuselage as the 737.
Boeing second biggest mistake was NOT continuously developing & improving the 737 & 757 because the a320 was future proof & clearly superior in every way to the 737. Eventually the A320 would compete against the 757 but when that happened the Boeing had stopped making the 757, so customers had no other option but to switch from the 757 to the A321.
Again. The 757 should have been developed as the 737 replacement .... not to compete in the medium plane market which was dominated by widebodies.
And the third biggest mistake was not continuously improving the 767 and not building the 777 NG, Max or X in the early 2000s ... to replace the 747 and to compete with the new A380.
Boeing would still be totally dominate as a maker with the 757, 767, & 777 being their cash cows. Boeing should have rebranded a new design regional jet with 737 name..
At this point the question is if Boeing has enough good people left and those few folks have any sort of morale to want to build a good plane. I've worked with them for years and I'd lean toward no on that point. The last time I did a contract with Boeing (fairly recent) I had engineers coming up to me begging me to find them a job somewhere else. I've never seen a company where the the morale is so low that the environment is completely toxic. This is the result of twenty years of Boeing undermining its relationship with it's employees and I'm not sure how you get that trust back now besides start all over in a new city with someone else's employees.
Seems Clarke is a strong Boeing supporter. If I were Airbus, I’d be wary of Emirates as customer and keep an eye and both ears open to what this guy does and says.