7 hours ago, SAS443 said:

I don't know. I'm not an expert in this field.

Interesting that you don't have any ideas.

5 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

weird thing is that given all the sunk costs engineering the current Boeing line-up, a 757-class aircraft really shouldn’t be that much work to cobble together

Some time ago in a related discussion here I proposed just updating the 757 like they've done with the 777 - new engines, composite wings, updated avionics, improved aerodynamics, a slight stretch perhaps, etc.

I understand that it would still be a huge undertaking, as plants would have to be re-tooled and all in order to manufacture it.

I still think it would be a winner.

Dave

 

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

still think it would be a winner.

It’d certainly be better than what they’re presently doing…

On 10/8/2025 at 7:28 AM, dave2013 said:

The Airbus A320 is indeed a great airplane.  

Boeing might have stayed on top if not for the monumental screw-up with the 737 Max which spooked a lot of customers.  The Max is actually a pretty good plane, but the damage was done with the crashes.

IMO Boeing should have developed a clean sheet, brand new single-aisle replacement for the 737.  It would have cost more up front, but they could have maintained superiority in the single aisle market for years to come.  Alas, that ship has sailed.

This is what you get when you put incompetent and greedy executives in charge of a great airplane maker.

Dave

The definition of incompetence and greed = McDonnell Douglas management had Boeing management buy MD with Boeing money ie. Boeing (run by engineers) bought MD (run by sales) and... wait for it.... MD ... took over management of Boeing.

Hollywood should make a move about how the 737 Max came about..

The two culprits:
"The Boeing–McDonnell Douglas merger in 1997 was primarily driven by Phil Condit (moved HQ to Chicago away from Seattle), then CEO of Boeing, and Harry Stonecipher (later asked to resign for ethics violation), CEO of McDonnell Douglas. While Boeing was the acquiring company, many analysts argue that Stonecipher played a pivotal role in shaping the post-merger corporate culture — one that leaned more toward cost-cutting and shareholder value than Boeing’s traditional engineering-first ethos"

 

 

OK but McDonnell Douglas had the F-15 and F/A-18 production lines up and running.  Given how the F-35 has turned out, not sure I would take Lockheed engineering over McDonnell Douglas.  If anything Navy should keep the F/A-18 line open past 2027.

 

Heck, We need bunch of F-15s for Mountain Home now, right?

11 hours ago, scott967 said:

Given how the F-35 has turned out, not sure I would take Lockheed engineering over McDonnell Douglas.  If anything Navy should keep the F/A-18 line open past 2027.

Fortunately, we have the F-15EX Eagle and F-18E/F as a fallback. 

I've seen good and bad reports about the F-35.  All new fighter jets have problems, so the issues with the F-35 aren't unique.  I've read that it has a better safety record than the F-16 so far, and the cost overruns are par for the course with any procurements from defense contractors.

They performed well in the recent mission to take out Iran's nuclear weapons sites.

The real test would be a head to head against the latest Chinese and Russian fighters, as well as penetrating airspace protected by advanced SAM systems like the S-500 or HQ-22.

Dave