Byrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2152 posts, RR: 1 Posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2220 times:
I don't understand what role this plane is supposed to fill. It seems like an oddball model. Is it supposed to replace the 752/3 or 762/3?
It has seating similiar to a 764, but a lower range than a 752. Am I right in guessing that it will fill the role of a short-range/high-density plane? 289 seats seems like a lot of seats to fill even for LAS/SAN/MCO/FLL type of flights.
Did Boeing create this variant to make it appealing to LCC's? Also the range seems quite low. Will there be a range increase or a fuel tank option for airlines that may want to fly it farther than 3500 miles?
Here's hoping I see one in HP paint.
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
Behramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4487 posts, RR: 43 Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2143 times:
The B 7E7-300 can fly 3500nm with a full payload similar to the range of an A 300-600R or AB6...it has been mainly designed for JAL and ANA to replace their B 767s-DC10s-MD11s on domestic flights within Japan and around the region...it can seat 289 pax in a 2 class configuration.
But Boeing basically made it as it expects ANA and JAL to order a massive quantity of such aircraft...ANA already has...ANAs order for 50 B 7E7s will undoubt consist for a lot of B 7E7-300s!!!
AirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4492 posts, RR: 55 Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1955 times:
The B 7E7-300 can fly 3500nm with a full payload similar to the range of an A 300-600R or AB6
My understanding is that there will be no B 7E7-300, it will be the B7E7-3.
The reason for this is that Boeing wants to standardize the plane and NOT offer different configuration options like a 747-436 or a 777-223 or a 777-231LR (I wish) etc etc
this is how boeing can sell the plane for a lower cost, because of the savings due to the high degree of standardization.
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3277 posts, RR: 14 Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1924 times:
The reason for this is that Boeing wants to standardize the plane and NOT offer different configuration options like a 747-436 or a 777-223 or a 777-231LR (I wish) etc etc
Those are just airline codes, not different configurations.
Some airlines do order their own options, and Boeing would be stupid to stop offering those. Boeing is not in a position to tell any airline "you can't have that" if it means the difference between getting a $5 billion order and not getting a $5 billion order. But the series numbers just have an airline code tacked onto the end of them, whether the airline has ordered any options or not.
I'm sure we'll still see 7E7-346's or whatever, unless Boeing has done away with the airline code system. But it doesn't have to do with options. Maybe they just didn't see the point anymore in using "300" when they don't actually make a "300" for anybody but themselves. So they just say "3" and then tack on the airline code to make it a little more clear?
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
AirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4492 posts, RR: 55 Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1895 times:
Spacecadet, thanks for the explanation on tagging the customer codes on even if particular orders have not been optioned.
However I am quite sure on the standardization of configurations.
Just to give an example all dials and switches will be activated in the same way on all 7E7s. If you flip a switch towards the front of the plane to turn X function on on an AA 757 and you flip it towards the tail to turn in on on a TWA 757 that will not be happening anymore on the 7E7s.
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3277 posts, RR: 14 Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 19 hours ago) and read 1573 times:
Just to give an example all dials and switches will be activated in the same way on all 7E7s. If you flip a switch towards the front of the plane to turn X function on on an AA 757 and you flip it towards the tail to turn in on on a TWA 757 that will not be happening anymore on the 7E7s.
I'm quite sure it will. Boeing can say anything they want (though I haven't read this anywhere); they're not going to tell AA "no" if they ask for the switches to go in the other direction to match the rest of their fleet. Here's how the conversation goes:
AA: "We're thinking of buying either 50 7E7's or 50 Airbus A350's. Can you make the switches go the opposite way in the cockpit for us?"
Boeing: "No."
AA: "Ok, we'll give our money to Airbus."
Boeing: "Wait, wait! Did I say no? I meant yes!"
I'd like to read exactly what you read about this. I know Boeing has been talking about a "standardized" cockpit for a long time, but that just means it's standardized between their different models. So, for example, a pilot could be trained on a 747-400 and require minimal re-training to move over to a 7E7. Where possible, they could be type rated on several different models of Boeing aircraft, which makes it more likely that an airline will stick with Boeing throughout their fleet.
If an airline placing a big order wants knobs instead of switches, or if they want switches that go in the opposite direction, or if they want bigger fuel tanks, or if they want different engines, Boeing's going to figure out a way to give it to them. They're in business to make money, not to teach airlines a lesson about standardization.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
N1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25869 posts, RR: 79 Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 14 hours ago) and read 1336 times:
the 7E3 will also probably be the replacement for the AB6 at AA. With their all Boeing policy and problems with Airbus, they will jump at the plane. It has Hawaii range and will be able to do Atlantic hops from the Eastern US to Western Europe, with full compatibility to the 7E8 and 7E9. Plus, it will likely burn fuel like a 757, so it will definately fit a big niche.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
AirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4492 posts, RR: 55 Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 12 hours ago) and read 1225 times:
Spacecadet, I am a Boeing PW employee and this is what I have been told from a pal at BCA Long Beach.
According to him, this standardization stuff is one of reasons why Boeing can offer the plane for a not-so-exorbitant price.
Don't know if it is true but other colleagues have been told the same thing.
However as you said...
If an airline placing a big order wants knobs instead of switches, or if they want switches that go in the opposite direction, or if they want bigger fuel tanks, or if they want different engines, Boeing's going to figure out a way to give it to them. They're in business to make money, not to teach airlines a lesson about standardization
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2152 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4487 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4492 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
