The 787 was a great strategic move. The execution there was the problem, but despite that, it was the right choice.
> based on the Southwest playbook
Airbaltic seems to be all A220 by now.
The 787 has fantastic product market fit, has good new technology in it and will be a cornerstone for Boeing for decades. The issues with 787 are production, not understanding what it can do. But despite those production issues, orders keep coming in.
Even with the production issues, they still had a peak production rate of 150 planes.
And those issues arent limiting sales very much.
So even with the production issues it was the right choice.
The program just isnt quite as profitable as hoped. Still the right strategy.
No that's not the fundamental reason. The strategy of continuing with the 737 could have been done in a save way. There is nothing inherent in the 737 that makes it fundamentally unsafe.
> You try to make a point it is the right strategy but execution was lacking. I respectfully disagree.
You haven't actually made the point at all. With 787 the execution was flawed. With 737 MAX the execution was even more flawed. You have only provided other examples of flawed execution.
That doesn't prove the strategy was wrong.
Doing the 787 also doesn't inherently mean you can't replace the 737. Boeing had enough money to do both as they have done before.
Saying Boeing should have done some other strategy would likely also have resulted in flawed execution of some kind.
Without the 787, they might have had to do a 767 MAX. And that 767 MAX could have also crashed if the execution was flawed.
All you are doing is imagining a different strategy and then asserting that everything would have been amazing if that strategy had been followed.
Thoughts on this devil’s advocate perspective? “Don’t design/propose what your org can’t build.”
Putting my own devils advoacte "Should you never design something new because you cant prove production is gone be easy"