2 ms·
> Unfortunately they're just chasing marginal efficiency gains with these Marginal gains is the name of the game for airliners. A 2% increase in fuel efficienc
by Alupis 6y ago
> Unfortunately they're just chasing marginal efficiency gains with these
Marginal gains is the name of the game for airliners. A 2% increase in fuel efficiency is something airlines drool over.
> It's much more important to make a plane that's safe enough to actually remain in the air.
Which Boeing unequivocally does. Ya, they stumbled with the 737-MAX, but all the other perfectly good 737 variants are still the workhorse of most airlines. There's still more 737's flying around than Airbus A320 variants (including the A321). That doesn't even account for all the 767, 777 and 787's flying around the world every day... nor all the 747's and DC10/MD-11's shuttling freight too.
- CydeWeys 6y ago> Marginal gains is the name of the game for airliners. A 2% increase in fuel efficiency is something airlines drool over. It's not if the resultant airplane isn't safe to use. 2% improvement over nothing (because you can't even fly the damn thing) is nothing. Most of the success stories you're referring to are the old Boeing, from decades past. The 787 had lots of problems but they did eventually get it dialed in with fortunately no fatal crashes, just having lost many billions of dollars in overruns. But their most recent plane is an absolute disaster. They can't keep coasting on the successes of the past without making more successes in the future. These layoffs are prove of it. On their current trajectory, they are failing.