AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2430 posts, RR: 10 Posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2365 times:
From: Flight International: 1-7 April 2003 page 10 by Guy Norris/Los Angeles
"Boeing has picked an eight-abreast main cabin for the 7E7 as it moves toward the crucial definition of the cross-section, and it has outlined new details of its plans to develop mid-and long-range family variants.
The 7E7 cross-section is expected to be around 5.7m (226in) in diameter, which will make it capable of accommodating two LD-3 cargo containers side-by-side, unlike the smaller 767. The 7E7's diameter gives it an advantage of at least 100mm over the rival Airbus A330, enabling the 7E7 to accommodate wider seats, for the same number of seats abreast, and wider aisles, says Boeing. The 5.7m cross-section is around 0.7m greater than the 767 and 0.45m less than the 777. Like the 777, the section will be ROUND, unlike the double-bubble 767 and Boeing narrowbodies.
The company has also simplified its family plan into two main variants and two main range categories. The former 7E7-300/400 designations have now been dropped, the aircraft now being referred to simply as 7E7 and 7E7 Stretch (7E7STR). The baseline long-range 7E7 is aimed at seating 200-220 passengers in a three-class layout and with a range of between 14,430km (7,800nm) and 14,800km. The long-range 7E7STR is configured to seat 240 to 260 passengers, and has a design range of 13,320-13,690km.
Fewer details of the mid-range 7E7 offerings have been revealed, but they are thought to cover a roughly 5,550-6,300km capable 7E7STR, seating between 320 and 340 passengers in a two-class layout, and a standard 7E7 seating between 280 and 310 passengers in the same layout, and with a range of around 6,480-7,400km.
Boeing says that full details of the mid- and long-range variants are being discussed with the airlines, but the company adds that the development plan calls for as few variations as possible.
The company is expected to issue requests for proposals to potential suppliers by August. System selections are expected by year-end, to coincide with Boeing seeking formal authority to offer around December."
My apologies. Now, I see why it will take until the end of 2004 to get it launched.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2273 times:
Very interesting. It sounds more and more like Boeing is developing a scaled down 777. Not that it's a bad thing!
It also sounds to me like the 757 will continue on. The proposed 7E7 mid-range will carry 280-310 passengers in a dual class layout. The 757-200/300 carries 180-240 in the same configuration. I believe that when the 7E7 program is well underway, the 757NG will gain interest.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2193 times:
Pure speculation on my part. Keep in mind, other than the -300, there have been no other improvements/upgrades to the 757 in it's lifetime. (OK, it did get 737NG interiors) It's overdue. Upgraded engines, tweaking of the wing, 777 type cockpit. I think it's coming.
QANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1804 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2174 times:
Isn't a new type of aircraft fitting between a 767 and a 777 trying to occupy a very narrow window market? To me, it's like coming out with the "787" that is bigger than a 737-300 and smaller than a 737-400. That's a very small playing field.
My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2430 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1855 times:
"Like the 777, the section will be ROUND, unlike the double-bubble 767 and Boeing narrowbodies."
This is the part of the article that really caught my attention because earlier reports had the cross-section defined as a modified 'double-bubble', larger in the lower lobe for improved cargo capacity. Boeing must have decided that, as with the 777, a round cross-section is lighter, easier to build and less prone to fatigue.
BWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2193 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1756 times:
Just hope that this aircraft bring a practical hault to the 330 programme. So it seems that the battle feild is drawn for the next decade seing that if this aircraft follows in the steps of Boeing last widebody market will become as tough as the 320 737 battle. And who can forget the batlle for Queen of the Skies 380 and 747
TransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 993 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1751 times:
So what exactly is the point of building two different circular cross section airliners (777 and 7E7), when the difference in diameter is so very small? Heck, the 7E7 will be even wider than the A300-A340 series! (although very close) It would seem to make more sense to just make a shorter and lighter 777 with a new wing.
And the passenger numbers / size of the plane keeps growing with every new snippet of information that is released. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. 7E7 = A330ER. Flame away!
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1704 times:
It is highly unlikely that the 757 will get a make-over. Instead, expect it to be replaced by the new single-aisle Boeing in about 10 years or so. Until then, the 737-900X is intended to fill the gap.
I still think a 757NG is more likely than an all new model. First of all, the 757 still is one of the most economical airliners in the world to operate. If more efficient technology is applied to this already "mucho-effiecient" airframe, look for operating cost to be even cheaper. Secondly, development costs for a derivative is much cheaper than producing an all new model. Another reason is that the 757 still has greater range than the 737NG. If additional range is designed into a 757NG, it would fit nicely into Boeing's marketing for more point-to-point sorties than more capacity.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1683 times:
Oddly enough, the 757 also has better short-field performance than the 737NG. It can carry a significant payload into and out of places where the 737 and A320 can operate only under tight restrictions.