I have zero idea where these figures came from. The c-series cost $6.1B to develop. A new narrow body by Boeing would cost more (as it would be designed for a broader range of sizes, probably three), but some of the technology already exists. Usual estimates are $10-15B max. Boeing has now spent more than $15B for the MAX so far.

The 797 is a concept that got wiped out by the a321neoLR and XLR. Had Boeing launched it earlier, perhaps a market of 1000-2000 planes, but the bottom half of that market has gone away with the a321neo. see https://www.economist.com/gulliver/2...pose-to-boeing (paywall). The remaining demand can be filled with 787 or 333s.

And I might add the MAX was NOT designed to be a permanent offering. The original plans were for Boeing to launch its' Y1 project (100-250 seat) project in 2020. That was put off by the MAX till 2030. But the big market (over 50% of Boeing's sales) is the narrow-body market.

No. TheA320 is a 1980s design (vs a 1960s design for the 737). Because it (a) sits higher, (b) has much more modern architecture and systems, and (c) is only at a single stretch with the A321 (vs. 4 with the MAX10) it was easy to update the engines. Airbus had the luxury of re-engining the plane relatively easily, and more importantly, was able to stretch the design to a much longer range with the A321neoXLR. Boeing was not able to do either of these things.

Had Boeing gone with a new narrowbody in 2011, Airbus might have elected to stick with the A320 series for another ten year, then build a new plane. Boeing was forced into it's choice by Airbus and then delaying making a decision.

I am sure that if you polled Boeing executives and workers today, 99.9% would say they wished Boeing would have launched a new narrow body in 2011 as originally planned.



+1. Too much plane combined with too many heavy systems. The 757 burns more than 25% more fuel per seat than the A321neoLR does No way that new engines can fill that big of a gap.