I can see US dom market only as poss option. South West obviously has significant exposure though they apparently looked at Airbus but decided to wait and see. Boeing might have to get those 757 jigs out of storage...those max engines would just about fit...
The 757 was originally envisaged as replacing the 737. It would have been quite possible to make a smaller (pax load) version, and the larger version was called the 767. But, it’s now a ship that has long sailed. Even if the jigs still exist, it’s too heavy, and even with modern engines would not be capable of getting near the 321NEO’s economy. It would have to be at least the equivalent technology wise as the 330 NEO, and Boeing just aren’t capable of developing that in any sort of reasonable timeframe. It’s worth noting that since the current management style became ascendant at Boeing, that they have not managed to bring one aircraft to fruition without major issues. Their last classic Boeing aircraft was the 777, in the early 90s. Everything since then (787, 747-8, MAX, KC-46) has been a disaster.
Of course l, there is "certification" and there is "certification".
One instance of "certification" may mandate Sim. training - which is not what Boeing want.
There’s certification, and there’s endorsements. If the aircraft cannot be certified, then it won’t fly. Of course that won’t happen, but it remains to be seen just what is going to be needed for it to get airborne again. I think it’s probably pretty obvious that it’s more than dud MCAS software logic that‘s the problem. One issue that has to be faced is that if the MCAS is turned off, then it now appears that the aircraft flight characteristics are unacceptable. So, you need to be able to turn MCAS off, but if MCAS can be turned off, then that also makes it uncertifiable. Boeing were pushing the line that MCAS was to make it feel more like the older 737s, in which case MCAS is not actually needed, but there is now doubt about that, and what was supposedly the smaller issue, that of unacceptable pitch up characteristics, is really the reason behind it.
The Europeans are pushing for the inclusion of a third AoA probe, and third computer, to triplicate the system. That would give proper failure redundancy. Boeing want to synthetically calculate some form of check. This is another point at which grandfathering meets modern rules. The original 737 had no form of digital FBW, and yet MCAS is, sort of. But, it‘s been slipped in without obeying any of the requirements FBW has to meet.
The aircraft is very substantially different to earlier 737s. It should never have even been considered eligible for co-endorsement. Basically MAX pilots should fly MAX, and not the other 737 models (and vice versa). That would upset many of the buyers, and the cost could well push them to AB. But, AB are unlikely to be able to fill additional orders anyway, so the point is moot.
