There was an interesting Mentour Pilot about this, essentially the lead time for a new airplane order is in the order of years, and there are other costs as well. If you've built your business around one specific type of jet it's costly to move to the competitors, which is why the "no type rating change" was so important for the max.
Perhaps for future large orders this may be a boon for Airbus, but that would be in the longer medium term, and a lot can happen between then and now.
As it is, having two large companies trading blows is better than one dominating the market, so I hope Boeing are humbled, have a root and branch overhaul of how they conduct business, and shareholders take a hit, but that they survive.
You still have the FAA and related regulations issues, this kind of unsafe behavior should have been caught early. Is FAA regulating other companies and products? those also would need investigated
Most definitely - and the way that FAA essentially outsources the approval back to the manufacturer is something that needs to change ... but is there the will in the Senate and White House to spend more on the FAA?
From what I read the FAA people were paid by Boeing in the past but they were reporting to FAA, it makes sense , you want your plane,drone other device certified you pay the expenses of the engineers that will do the checks, there should be no need to pay them with public money.
> If you've built your business around one specific type of jet it's costly to move to the competitors, which is why the "no type rating change" was so important for the max.
Yes it is costly but you know what? It's BS
Because the 737 line (nor the A320 nor any other line) is not going to last forever. (Especially wrt widebodies but that's another issue as I don't know if the A330Neo and the 777X have the same type as their predecessors)
EVERY airline should be planning ahead. I'm thinking if Southwest and/or Ryanair are not thinking about keep flying their NGs and forget all about this MAX stuff for one or two years at least (FR delayed their MAX deliveries last I heard)
Now Airbus just put out the NEO and they probably have room for another refresh on that platform but probably not two refreshes. But again, it won't last forever
Though the tough part for airlines is two: pilots can't switch between 2 types and bringing another type slowly is hard. But it is something they will have to do eventually
Just because they'll have to fly two types eventually doesn't mean they want to spend on making the switch now, especially not with an airframe that is an incremental improvement in fuel economy. (Not to mention that other OEM offerings suddenly look a lot more viable for operators wanting newer generation narrowbodies if they're forced to change type certificates regardless)
Genuinely new types that might offer a step change in operating economics that's worth all the hassle carry the risk of more aircraft programme delays and early operational issues anyway.
And Boeing's original plan was to do a clean-sheet redesign, but Airbus launched the A320neo which within six months had over 1k orders, and Boeing felt commercial pressure from its customers to launch something comparable (a re-engining, not a clean-sheet design) so its customers weren't being undercut by their competitors (who would then have lower fuel costs, etc.).
Airbus notably have recently been hiring for a clean-sheet A320 successor (though there's no firm commitment to that, yet), despite it being a 20 year newer design than the 737.
Perhaps for future large orders this may be a boon for Airbus, but that would be in the longer medium term, and a lot can happen between then and now.
As it is, having two large companies trading blows is better than one dominating the market, so I hope Boeing are humbled, have a root and branch overhaul of how they conduct business, and shareholders take a hit, but that they survive.