> I'm not talking about completely different planes. If you have a Boeing 737 type rating, obtaining a 757/767 type rating is more expedient than it is for someone who has no prior Boeing 737 type rating.
Aren't the 737 and the 757/767 completely different planes? Isn't the difference between a 737 NG and a 737 MAX a lot smaller than the difference between a 737 NG and a 767?
> Further the regulations say whether a type certificate is required, and what goes into it, is up to the administrator. It's not strictly defined. You can in in effect have subtype ratings.
It's not surprising that the regulators have that level of discretion, but that only helps if it's expected they'll use it like that, which seems contrary to what Boeing did expect given their apparent aversion to it.
>Aren't the 737 and the 757/767 completely different planes?
No. But then, given your questions thus far, we clearly don't have a common frame of reference, so I don't really know what you mean by completely different. They are not 100% different, that's for sure.
Consider this: the difference between a 737 NG and MAX is smaller than the difference between a 757 and 767. And yet the 757/767 share a single type rating. They were designed at the same time and have nearly identical cockpit layouts. And guess what, the Airbus 320 and 340 share the same type certificate as well, they're more different from each other than the 757 and 767 are to each other. But the two Airbus's also have the same cockpit layout, control systems, and software abstraction such that in normal flight they pretty much behave the same (obviously ground operations are different, they are rather substantially differently sized).
A "subtype" is just not applicable in this discussion. Any completely redesigned airplane from Boeing, in lieu of the 737 MAX, no matter its size, is going to so radically depart from any other airplane's flight characteristics and cockpit layout, that it would absolutely end up with its own type certificate. You can't design a new airplane model, and shove in the cockpit from a 737 NG. You can't and you wouldn't want to.
They dropped the ball. And the instant the Airbus 320neo was announced, Boeing was shown to have gotten caught with their pants down, and that has nothing at all to do with the regulatory paradigm.
Aren't the 737 and the 757/767 completely different planes? Isn't the difference between a 737 NG and a 737 MAX a lot smaller than the difference between a 737 NG and a 767?
> Further the regulations say whether a type certificate is required, and what goes into it, is up to the administrator. It's not strictly defined. You can in in effect have subtype ratings.
It's not surprising that the regulators have that level of discretion, but that only helps if it's expected they'll use it like that, which seems contrary to what Boeing did expect given their apparent aversion to it.