I was Thinking Back In 2012

Back on Sunday, December 30, 2012, Winging It knew what was coming from Boeing's wide-bodied aircraft. For a historical perspective click on the link below.

The 777X Project Is Going Underground Call It Project X

Almost Five Years Ago I Had a Boeing "Told You So", Moment

The 787-300 Lost But Not Forgotten

It came to my brain box a long time ago, long after it was first thought off. The time was probably when Boeing was pushing forward on three 787-3-8-9 model types in 2010. A lot of water has been flown over since then and my imagination was stuck on the 777X program at the time. Please read the link below for how wacked I was about the 777 airplanes. For those who have been following this blog for a long time, there will be a link supplied just below to see the early beginnings of this blog.

The 777X Project Is Going Underground Call It Project X

Boeing had already gone several years into a big body airplane known as the 747, and it was dead as a market player. But Pride cometh before the fall. Stop whipping a dead horse. The 747-8i, and 737 Max are all dead Boeing horses by 2012. This revelation should have made Boeing move in a great way, but instead, it ripped the opportunity apart Just as Nancy Pelosi ripped apart Trump's State of the Union address. The nation may heal but Boeing may not since those Golden Parachute VP have already bought a Puget Sound Yacht.

Boeing Strategic Review

The first point to make is: 

• Commercial aviation product must match its strategic plan

Boeing has failed to complete its aviation product line when it had the opportunity from 2015 until 2020. The long road to catching-up has begun it may take 10 years to complete its product line.  The important items are beginning to matriculate out of its strategies like the 777X program and a relationship with GE jet engines through this 777X process. The prior strategic plan did not match where the industry is going while its main competitor strived to become a customer hound by building commercial jet with more room. Those roomier jets are not technologically better but are more popular for ticket-buying customers to ride somewhere.

• The 737 concept must be eliminated:

Long ago, the runway standing of the 737 was too shallow making engine builders build around the low clearance on the runway, while making the engine move forward, and finally, the low airplane standing at take-off required an inadequate MCAS system that would fly the 737 MAX to its doom. Get rid of the 737 as its clearance on take-off is too limiting of the 737 engines and safety issue as the airplane is now out of balance with engines too far forward on the wing, and its poor center of gravity put the Max into flying peril as to what could be described as unsafe. The 737 should have been canceled before Airbus would build its first A300 series airplane. If it had changed the 737 to a baseline single-aisle by 1980. it would of not be in the situation today it now finds itself. The 737  is killing Boeing and collapsing stock-holder value. Its bold Max move did not solve the 737 problems at all. Now the strategic move must include huge risk and expenditure beyond investors want. It must strategically change aviation to win. It must build a smaller market airport plane using the 783-300 or even a 787-200  using smaller dimensions.

• The Twin/Twin is a concept worth pursuing. 

Here's the premise for this gap plugger starting a step down from the 787-8. here are a few rules. Twin aisles/Twin engines or a better achieving twin/twin airplane. Keep building the 737 because you are stuck with that concept, but use what you have already paid for during the 787 programs. Start with the 787-300 design and then size it for 200-270 passengers. Go seven ago with a reasonable body width. Twin-aisle means fast-on and fast-off and big windows for everybody! Partner with Embraer having them bring forward a respectable single-aisle starting at 75 seats up to 175 seats according to a model both Boeing and Embraer can build. The strategic goal is for Boeing to make The NMA and Embraer make the single-aisle family of aircraft. It a big headache to do a sea change but so is it a bigger headache to crash airplanes and lose the market from greed. It's going to be a long time before Boeing recovers from its current greedy mistake shoved on the flawed 737 Max, but in order to regain the lead in the industry, it must rethink its family of aircraft from the top (777X) to Bottom  (E's 170- 200).

The Boeing 777X Order Backlash

Why doesn't Boeing have 1,000 777X orders for both the 777-9X and 777-8X aircraft since so many 777-300ER's are in existence?

The answer is the loss of Boeing confidence on new technology as it has proven to be a risky business to buy a new Boeing technology as found in the 737 MAX since its two crashes. 

Only 309 777X orders demonstrate this fallen confidence since no new orders have been placed recently. But the hope remains that after successful fight testing and entry into service that will change if Boeing can win back customer confidence it had lost during the 737 Max debacle. The order backlash is comprised of loss of customer confidence and a tighter financial economy existed back when it was first announced. Below are Boeing objectives:

• Error-free testing of major systems advanced on the 777X in 2020
• Successful entry into service during the first 18 months through 2021
• Customer success with 777X Family of aircraft
• The Max crash "recovers" by "big" steps taken by Boeing
• Finally, the 777X storms the market, by selling another 300 aircraft after entry into service through 2022.

Boeing Has A 777X Test Plan

Test Plan Link

The 777X test plan is found in the above link if only someone would put on the mantle of logging flights, time, and other sundries associated with the 777X. let me know via email at :

Trapperpk@gmail.com

I will make it a link for me if you blog the data. Thanks in advance!

Hey Boeing!!! "What about a 787-300 TYPE For The NMA?"

Boeing, it's in your face but you can't see past your nose after the Max crashed. You could have a twin/twin continental buster using lessons learned from the 787 projects, especially the 787-300 before it was unceremoniously dropped. If they rolled out the 787-300, it may catch Airbus flat-footed, as they wouldn't be able to respond with its A350 or A320 families of aircraft. After-all this is your new passion, stop the Euro insanity emitting from Airbus. Go PW or GE but not Rolls engines and make an NMA narrow twin/twin from 200-250 seats and "bam!" 

"Airbus is not your uncle!" FLIGHT GLOBAL

Flying The Big 777-9X "Pilots Said", read on for response.

The snippets from the first flight from the 777 9X suggest success for normal airplane model first flight. The pilot did what they were paid to do praise the newest airplane of the Boeing fleet as the most advance airplane when making progressions forward over its competitors. The first flight is meant to be a debutant moment when the "Queen" starts the ball. It had done so with the 747 with that ball many years ago in the seventies when there was no other to compare with the 747. Then came to the 737,757, NG, 787, MAX  and finally this family of aircraft, the 777X's. 

Boeing did not mess with Max MCAS  and other blocks of ideas coming from the 737 MAX program. It won't duplicate the MCAS used on Max by installing MCAS system computers and systems driven by flying out of flight trim. However, Boeing will fix all miscellaneous function errors and replace accordingly all those systems and parts from other systems found failed during testing of parts. Pure and simple the Max failure was of a single-aisle airplane that should have never been made during the 1970s, Design feature was not addressed with an opportunity of a remake of its design. The Max is just a workaround for fixing the single-aisle low engine wing station shoved forward. MCAS would have to control the 737 with only one sensor protecting the flight. Once computing from the one MCAS sensor failed the plane literally fell out of the air with a fail system reading data in an inappropriate manner. The 777X program has more on track than any other program Boeing has at this time. Live long and prosper.


This Article is available for a further comment @ GEEKWIRE

• “It was awesome,” 777X chief test pilot Van Chaney told reporters at Seattle’s Boeing Field, where the nearly four-hour flight test ended at 2 p.m. PT".

• Chaney said he would have stayed up longer if he could. “The moment we lifted off and got into the air, I thought, ‘Man, this is amazing.’

•  "Amazing” was also the word that co-pilot Craig Bomben, who serves as Boeing’s vice president of flight operations and chief test pilot, used to describe the landing.

• “We came in under fairly tough conditions,” Bomben said. “Bounced around a little bit, took turbulence [but] the airplane went right through it.”

First and Most Successful Landing From First Flight 777X

The NMA From Boeing Pressed INTO Service

Boeing has long pondered a New Medium Aircraft but has delayed due to moderate success with its big body and single-aisle aircraft, namely the 737 through the 777. But the Max has crashed twice not due to weather nor pilot error or mechanical failure. It crashes because of engineering sloppiness. Max is more of a flying skill than what the pilots are even prepared for, hence it crashed.

The single-aisle bookend to its family of airplanes is gone! It must now focus on an NMA single-aisle blend, An airplane that Airbus will copy because it can and Boeing can't afford to not build(double negative for effect). 

Winging IT has already hinted at a 150-270 seated affair where it must go twin-aisle and bigger engine to accommodate efficiency and twin-engine technology to a frame for the future growth of an airplane concept. Boeing is forced to change gears on the hill it attempts to climb. One airplane can do it while dropping the 737 Max and dropping the NMA on a rethink. 

My two cents worth should propel Boeing forward in one move for which Airbus can't respond well forcing a drop of its A321 and others. Boeing needs to play hardball and stop its sophistry from the design board or executive level stockmarket thinking.

It must build an NMA which causes Airbus to rethink its march on the market. Boeing's top-end WB  is solid but it has a MAX bottom end making it pay for its sloppy long-range strategy on the cheap. Now it must go back and rethink what it must do from old fashion values of work hard and be honest with its customers. It must sell its customers on a new vision in order to succeed.

The NMA must succeed in two regions. The single-aisle-replacement mode and the dual aisle gap filler mode as a segway to its 787 and beyond. A twofer for one is the objective of hard work and honesty, a 757 NMA. A short twin-aisle aircraft with taller legs is the beginning. Bring Embraer forward in the single-aisle end of a family by going down to regional distances from the smaller airports and smaller seat counts. Capping the market segment will stretch 757 twins/twin from 150- 270 seats in the continental configuration of up to 5,000 miles. Bigger than 737 engines are brought to from a new clean sheet. Twin-aisles and twin engines name it the "twin-twin". Airbus would only be able to knock off a twin-twin concept. Doing so would make it a fart wider than Boeing's concept, but Boeing's marketing is left to fight that battle. Or better-stated, twin X twin makes it four times better than the one aisle coming from Airbus' A321.

Air Current Proposes

The Air Current Link agrees with Winging IT in so much as uses its great detective skills regarding Boeing and say "clean Sheet" and let the Max fade into oblivion while bringing on a new aircraft doing it the right way, which they can and will!

Boeing Needs To Build A Clean Sheet from 175 Passenger to 270 Passenger Seating

In order to do that, it must snuff out the 737 Max and enhance the NMA line idea first up is a seven across seating regimen and lengthening the 737-NMA  depending on row capacity of 2-3-2 dual aisle seating. Fast on Fast off having dual-aisle configuration. It must have a 15" wide interior capacity for seven across seating.  The stretch goes as follows:

• NMA 175 is 24 rows of the premium economy (PE)
• NMA 200 is a stretch out for 30 (PE) rows using the same engines slotted on the 150
• NMA 250 is a stretch out having 36 rows of 7 across seats maybe a "34" pitch.
• NMA 275 is the same stretch-out length as the 250 models but with 31" pitch or whatever, it takes having 275 seats.

Gone are the 737 Maxs and gone are the low clearance landing gears, With longer clearance stretch, it may allow the most efficient engines with the diameter it needs to beat the competition.  Okay, Boeing engineers do your stuff and snuff the 737 Max.