I also like the intellectual idea of taking an older airframe (767-200) that is suitable for the task and modernizing it once, rather than applying yet another level of patches to something already pushed far outside of it's intended design envelope.
But why is it so hard to develop a new plane now, compared to patching an old one? One would think computers could make a single engineer hugely more effective nowadays than back then. Constraints, generative design, accurate simulations. Additive manufacturing, CNC machines and composites can make manufacturing a lot simpler too. Has it actually reduced any cost? Interest rates are really low too.
Is it that new planes being developed have much stricter regulations? If so, that's a problem, the incentives result in the public being less safe.
The A220 ran so much over budget that the whole program was sold to Airbus. Yet it seems like a really good airplane from what I've read. 787 and A350 were also terribly expensive.
Something similar has happened with nuclear plants. They seem to take much longer to do than way back and are so expensive to be barely profitable. A friend commented that one reason is because top talent doesn't see the nuclear industry as a "cool" thing or a viable career anymore.
There is one additional problem in airplanes and nukes. They are seen as prestige projects by governments. This makes it hard to make regular money in the industry as you always have subsidized competition.
It was always hard to develop a new plane. For all that the author waxes rhapsodic about the 747's 2 year design to test flight, the 747 development process very nearly killed Boeing (it brought Boeing far closer to the brink than the a380 did for Airbus).
