The 757 is (soon to be was) a fine airplane - especially with the Rolls engines. Fuel efficiency was its undoing, although that got you incredible take-off and landing performance. They also have a luxury few single-aisles have - a second boarding door to isolate First Class. British Airways always used it; AA was hit-or-miss depending on airport.
You don't consider the addition of winglets "retooling for greater fuel efficiency"? They have done that for most of their 757s that they intend to retain for a while.
I applaud the airlines that did this, since 757's still have a role in certain long "thin" international routes. Both AA's and United's front cabin reconfiguration for this application (lie-flat seats) have their merits, and there's something about a small cabin that improves the service. That having been said, it's a very long claustrophobic cabin in economy on a flight of more than a few hours.
The 747 was an amazing accomplishment but early models had numerous issues and shortcomings that led to a long list of incidents, accidents, and complications. Boeing's decision to use uranium as a counterweight was especially questionable and unnecessary. Although relatively safe to knowledgeable maintenance personnel when fully intact, these designs were dangerous to passengers, bystanders, and first responders at 741 accident sites who risked unknowingly inhaling or ingesting radioactive dust. The fundamental design failures and flawed corrective actions involving early 747 Combi units were so difficult to defend the entire class is largely relegated to history. The 767 had serious thrust reverser issues that should have been caught in the testing and certification phase. Early model 737's suffered numerous rudder hardover events due to flawed actuators. I could go on but the point is that Boeing has never actually lived up to the nearly infallible status some fans insist on granting it. I'm not anti-Boeing or pro-whoever, I just think it's important to remember that manufacturers of critical systems are only as dependable as the regulations under which they operate. Give any manufacturer the ability to self-certify their critical system designs and safety protocols and you'll eventually suffer the repercussions of that decision.
Ironically not a single 787 has ever been built at Renton
Only Everett and Charleston.
I didn't research it further, but it was a direct quote from a recent article regarding the issues with the Charleston builds - loose wires, metal shavings, ill-fitting parts, et al. The author was stating that three major airlines (I believe AA and AC are two) have specified only 787's built in Washington state after having to do modifications in-house. He said Renton and I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that was accurate.Ironically not a single 787 has ever been built at Renton
Treating the MAX like a previous 737 model is precisely how we ended up with this situation in the first place. The solution is to stop grandfathering endless modifications and re-certify from the ground up like a brand new design.
What makes the MAX competitive with the A320neo is the new larger fan engine, which is what causes the aerodynamics to change which causes the need for MCAS to make the aircraft have the same feel as the NG. If you basically revert back to NG you can expect most of your orders to vaporize since there is no compelling reason to buy the aircraft anymore except for a few cases of filling holes in seat inventory while Airbus cranks up their production of 320neos.
