Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation  
User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3066 posts, RR: 5
Posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 18534 times:

Is there any new info on Y1's progress?

Will the Y1 employ a dramatic new shape, or will it be mostly conventional in appearance?

Is the janitor at P&W's test facility getting tired of sweeping up bits of shattered gearboxes, or are the GTF test engines performing as well as expected?

Could another engine manufacturer meet Boeing's desired fuel-efficiency increases through a different technology?

Will the Y1 line be split among two fuselage widths, a single-aisle one for 90-, 108-, and 128-seat versions and a twin-aisle one for 150-, 180-, and 220-seat versions?

Will the ease of assembly of CFRP barrels outweigh the modest weight savings over aluminum panels in narrowbody aircraft, thus making it the construction method of choice for these new airliners?

Will any version of Y1 come close to the takeoff and climb performance standard set by the dearly-departed 757?

I realize conclusive answers to any of these questions are impossible at this point, but it is fun to speculate.


Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
106 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30641 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 18487 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If I was running the program, I'd have a single-aisle plane with an interior cabin (not necessarily fuselage) width 4-6" wider then the A320 to allow 3+3 at 18" with an aisle large enough for two people or to pass each other during (dis)embarking or to get past the service cart in-flight.

I'd have four models:

797-1: 150 passengers / 3000nm range
797-2: 200 passengers / 2500nm range
797-3: 200 passengers / 4500nm range
797-4: 225 passengers / 4000nm range

The 797-1 and 797-2 would appeal to LCCs and "domestic" ops. They'd be built lighter with lower MEWs and MTOWs for better fuel efficiency, cheaper acquisition costs, and cheaper landing fees.

The 797-3 and 797-4 would replace the 757-200 on trans-Atlantic missions to secondary city-pairs. They'd be the "HGW" versions with higher MEWs and MTOWs.

All four would be made from CFRP and use either LEAP56 or GTF powerplants.


User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 18439 times:

Quoting TSS (Thread starter):
Will the Y1 employ a dramatic new shape, or will it be mostly conventional in appearance?

Probably be conventional tube and wings. As much as people would like something drastically new, realistically it will most likely look like today's airplanes on the outside.

Quoting TSS (Thread starter):
Is the janitor at P&W's test facility getting tired of sweeping up bits of shattered gearboxes, or are the GTF test engines performing as well as expected?

Pratt says the engine testing is going well and achieving the desired efficiency.

Quoting TSS (Thread starter):
Could another engine manufacturer meet Boeing's desired fuel-efficiency increases through a different technology?

I'm sure Rolls and GE have their own designs on the board for a new, more efficient, engine. The narrowbody market is for so many frames it would be suicide to not compete to get your engine on the plane.

Quoting TSS (Thread starter):
Will the Y1 line be split among two fuselage widths, a single-aisle one for 90-, 108-, and 128-seat versions and a twin-aisle one for 150-, 180-, and 220-seat versions?

Who ever said there will be 6 versions with these seat counts?


User currently offlineHawkerCamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 18326 times:

Quoting TSS (Thread starter):
Will the ease of assembly of CFRP barrels outweigh the modest weight savings over aluminum panels in narrowbody aircraft, thus making it the construction method of choice for these new airliners?

CFRP is likely to be superior due to its fatigue properties considering the high cycles numbers, even if there are no significant weight differences.

Y1 could potentially be 2 different aircraft sharing cockpit and flight systems.

Firstly
Y1a-100 - 120seats - M0.7 to 0.75 - 2000nm Unducted turbo Fan
Y1a-200 - 150seats - M0.7 to 0.75 - 2000nm UDF
Y1a-300 - 180seats - M0.7 to 0.75 - 2000nm UDF

Y1a will be optimised for very short sectors (~2hrs) and will benefit from significant fuel burn improvements over B737/A320. This will need to be of the order of -30%. The slower cruise speed and a slightly lower cruise altitude are required for the UDF.
This aircraft would be the perfect LCC aircraft and must have excellent fuel burn to keep the future breed of environmentalist looking at proper polluting industries.
(...Like the US automotive industry with its array of 15-20MPG 4.0litre 150BHP machines  cheeky  )

Secondly
Y1b-100 - 150seats - M0.8 - 3000nm - GTF
Y1b-200 - 180seats - M0.8 - 4000nm - GTF
Y1b-300 - 210seats - M0.8 - 3000nm* - GTF [*-200 and -300 share MTOW for commonality.]

Y1b would be capable of US transcontinental and Europe/East Coast flights in a comfortable 2-class and achieve the 3000nm to 4000nm ranges above. Alternatively it could be used in high density single class with 200-300 seats for shorter ranges.

Both aircraft would benefit from 787 composite technology but take it to the next generation. Perhaps a technology to look at would be more bonding of composite primary structure to reduce the number of fasteners and significantly reduce manufacture time / cost and may be weight. Bonding techniques are currently used in military aircraft but are probably consider too immature for commercial aircraft at present. Just as CFRP primary structure was 30years ago!

I believe there will be a big enough market for both Airbus and Boeing to develop 2 aircraft each optimised for the missions above. It may be possible that Y1A is produced with a partner manufacture like Embraer or Bombardier or even more significant Chinese / Japanese work. (Final Assembly?)


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 18326 times:

I personally believe there will be two cabin widths, one for the low cost carriers and one for airlines that want to replace the 757 on domestic and international flights. The one for LCCs will be single aisle and have range for transcon with different passenger numbers for flexibility. The other will be a twin aisle for more comfort and cargo and would be perfect for DL and their transcon 757s

User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3066 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 18299 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 2):
Who ever said there will be 6 versions with these seat counts?

Boeing7E7 speculated as much in another thread which inspired this one:

Quoting Boeing7E7:
Quoting Futurecaptain:I predict Y1 to cover 149-200 seats.
Two Class:

90, 108, 128, 150, 180, 220 - Same as the 737 and 757 line with better economics

I assumed he was using the capacities of current 737 and past 757 configurations as guidelines. While I doubt Y1 will use all or any of these exact capacities, I thought they were as good a starting point as any.



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6447 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 18270 times:

Perhaps if Y1 is split into two families, the smaller variants would use a 2-3 five-abreast layout (similar to the DC-9 family) while the larger variants would use a 2-2-2 six-abreast twin-aisle layout. The twin aisle layout might be useful for some airlines, such as Delta for their transcon services. Not to mention, it will also allow for single-file LD3 containers in the cargo area.

Winglets should be standard on all models. The smaller variants should feature large shelf bins with holding rails, while the larger variants should feature 787-style pivot bins.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8664 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 18244 times:

We all know one will be a 757 replacement and another for a 737. That leads us to one being 175-225 pax and another being 118-170 pax range. Also, the first will most likely have a 4000+ mile range while the second will be 2900-3500 mile range. Expect BBJ's for both.

Hunter



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 18128 times:

It is rather certain that AA and DL will be major buyers of both.

User currently offlineN844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 18104 times:

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 8):
It is rather certain that AA and DL will be major buyers of both.

I'm fond of saying that Boeing could launch a very successful Y1 program by selling it to Texas airlines alone. I figure AA, CO, and WN are good for at least 1500 frames over the life of the program. The rest of the world is just gravy.  Wink



New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30641 posts, RR: 84
Reply 10, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 17939 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I remain somewhat unconvinced on the advantages of having two narrowbody fuselage widths, as it just makes scheduling more difficult. And I am not sure that 2+2+2 offers anything over 3+3 with an aisle 4" wider. Twin aisles might make (dis)embarking faster, but chances are both aisles will clog. And it is a given they will with service carts. And the wider plane creates more drag. A 4-6" wider single aisle should help people squeak by their peers and the carts without causing as much extra drag.

Plus I am not sure airlines want six different configurations from a fleet-planning aspect. And I am not sure that offering a model with seating under 150 seats or between 150 and 200 seats is necessary. For some airlines, the 738 has trip costs almost equal to the 73G, but generates more revenue from those extra seats. And you need three FAs minimum with both, so crew costs are no cheaper. Better to optimize two models, one with 150 seats and one with 200 seats, for "short-haul" and "long-haul" operations. That way, an airline operating all four types has excellent flexibility. They can sub a long-haul model for a short-haul 1:1, which makes domestic irregular ops easier to plan for.


User currently offlineHawkerCamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 17870 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
I remain somewhat unconvinced on the advantages of having two narrowbody fuselage widths, as it just makes scheduling more difficult. And I am not sure that 2+2+2 offers anything over 3+3 with an aisle 4" wider. Twin aisles might make (dis)embarking faster, but chances are both aisles will clog. And it is a given they will with service carts. And the wider plane creates more drag. A 4-6" wider single aisle should help people squeak by their peers and the carts without causing as much extra drag.

I agree that 2+2+2 is not a very efficient cross section. 3+3 with slightly wider aisles is much better.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
Plus I am not sure airlines want six different configurations from a fleet-planning aspect. And I am not sure that offering a model with seating under 150 seats or between 150 and 200 seats is necessary

If this is referenced at my proposed 2 aircraft families above I would like to add the follow comments
> They are very different configurations. Y1a being like the easyjet concept
> Y1a is optimised about 2000nm and flies slower to work with the UDF
> In reality Y1a will only be used for mostly ~2hr sectors. Perfect for LCCs
> The shorter the sector the bigger the benefit for the UDF. It'll be significantly more efficient during take-off and climb
> The Y1a aircraft will not be perfect for all. Hence Y1b
> Y1a design would need to trade between 2+3 or 3+3
> Y1b would be 3+3 with wider aisles
> Y1b can be used on 3000nm to 4000nm ranges in a spacious 2-class or for shorter ranges in a more dense 1-class
> The payload range built into Y1b would not be as efficient for 1000-2000nm sectors as Y1a. Hence Y1a & Y1b.
> Y1b would come first since the P&W GTF is due to be available first. EIS 2015/17
> Y1a would EIS ~2020
> Still expect A320/B737 production sometime past Y1. I am sure there will be a period when both are built together. This could be as long as 5 years after Y1 EIS.


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 17817 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
I remain somewhat unconvinced on the advantages of having two narrowbody fuselage widths, as it just makes scheduling more difficult. And I am not sure that 2+2+2 offers anything over 3+3 with an aisle 4" wider.

Well people like me who hate a single aisle plane would enjoy it, my mom gets claustrophobic (i have no idea how to spell that!) and does much better on a 767 than a 757 because of the width. A twin aisle is much more comfortable to me and scheduling wouldn't be much different with 2 single aisles compared to 1 single and 1 twin, it would be just like switching from a 738 to a 752, unless they are identical planes there will always be some issues with swapping the planes.

Quoting N844AA (Reply 9):
I'm fond of saying that Boeing could launch a very successful Y1 program by selling it to Texas airlines alone. I figure AA, CO, and WN are good for at least 1500 frames over the life of the program. The rest of the world is just gravy.

Then add DL and possible UA (probably not UA i think they will stick with Airbus for the narrow body segment which will be interesting to see what NW and US decide when airbus comes out with the A320RS)

Quoting HawkerCamm (Reply 11):
Y1b would come first since the P&W GTF is due to be available first. EIS 2015/17
> Y1a would EIS ~2020
> Still expect A320/B737 production sometime past Y1. I am sure there will be a period when both are built together. This could be as long as 5 years after Y1 EIS.

That is really interesting and makes more sense then the current 737-600 up to 739, they need something more like the E jets E170/190 for the smaller market and might wait until new engines are available for that. The A320RS coming later in a way could help airbus to make it a little better than the 737NNG but Boeing would get the bulk of the orders much like the 787 and A350, Airbus would definately be a little behind since they are still working out a little more of the A380 and still have the A350 to wory about plus having something to replace the smaller A330 to compete with the 757/767 that is still not out, i may not like airbus but i do feel bad for them that they are not in a position to fight back immediately


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30641 posts, RR: 84
Reply 13, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 17738 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think something like the EasyJet concept would actually be built by Embraer or Bombardier with significant input and assistance from Boeing. If you could give it a "common cockpit" with the 737RS to keep crew training costs to a minimum, it might fly (excuse the pun).

User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6126 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 17672 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
And I am not sure that 2+2+2 offers anything over 3+3 with an aisle 4" wider.

Much more pax appeal!!!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
Twin aisles might make (dis)embarking faster

They do.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
And the wider plane creates more drag.

Not neccessarily... it really depends on the cross section that is finally adopted.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
I think something like the EasyJet concept would actually be built by Embraer or Bombardier with significant input and assistance from Boeing.

Not EMB or B... but perhaps MHI. Remember that they are a huge Boeing prime and will likely go ahead with the 70- to 90- seat MRJ that they unveiled in Paris with a planned EIS of 2012. It will be an-all composite program.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30641 posts, RR: 84
Reply 15, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days ago) and read 17559 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think passengers would prefer 3+3 18" wide seats and an aisle they can get past during cart service over 2+2+2 17" wide seats with aisles they can't get past.

People have to stop in the aisle, whether you have one or two to load and unload bags from the overhead and when they do, the flow of traffic stops because you cannot get past them. That is why airlines load from the back, to try and minimize the impact of those stops. Being able to get past them to your seat should increase turn times, even if you have less aisles, because traffic doesn't stop.


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1546 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days ago) and read 17221 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
If I was running the program, I'd have a single-aisle plane with an interior cabin (not necessarily fuselage) width 4-6" wider then the A320 to allow 3+3 at 18" with an aisle large enough for two people or to pass each other during (dis)embarking or to get past the service cart in-flight.

I think this is the most critical decision to be made.

There will be direct head to head competition here. If one manufacturer could produce a fuselage which was significantly more comfortable for the pax and loaded and unloaded faster, they would have a distinct advantage. (I know the 320 fuselage is wider but obviously not a big enough difference to put Boeing out of the race, with the current 737).

I find it very unlikely that a twin ailse 2+2+2 could be made as weight or aerodynamically efficient as a single ailse.

If Boeing jumps first with Y!, they will want some security that Airbus cannot significantly leap frog them in terms of fuselage efficiency.

Stitch's view of 18 seatrs with a wider Ailse, makes most sense to me, and it is unlikely6 Airbus could either go under or over it, and still maintain a competitive aircraft from a pax comfort and efficiency point of view.

A couple of Red Herrings! A seven abreast twin aisle 2+3+2 could be made a lot narrower than the current 767,and would have much better efficiency than the 2+2+2 which I think is a non starter.

What about Cargo capacity.? A Y1 with a lower lobe fuselage able to take the current 320 pallets makes sense to me.

What about the Chinese? Will they enter this market in conjunction with Airbus or go it alone? The Russians, & Brazil?

Ruscoe


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6126 posts, RR: 34
Reply 17, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days ago) and read 17156 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
think passengers would prefer 3+3 18" wide seats and an aisle they can get past during cart service over 2+2+2 17" wide seats with aisles they can't get past.

The passing in the aisle is a smaller issue in a twin versus single aisle than it would appear for a few reasons...

1) No one likes sittine in a middle seat... PERIOD!!!

2) No one likes having to scrabble over 2 pax (or be climbed over) by the window seat pax during boarding or during the flight.

3) In a twin aisle, the lavs at either end are closer compared to a single aisle.

4) Some airlines have done away with using the trolleys on several flights and just run back and forth to the galleys with drinks on trays, etc. This is even easier and (and would be even more feasible on more flights) with a twin aisle.

Here is a link to a fairly interesting article about long haul single aisle flights in the NY Times...

http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/07/29...s%2fA%2fAirlines%20and%20Airplanes

excerpt...

Or you could avoid single-aisle planes altogether. Joseph Remy, a financial analyst from Washington, bought a ticket on a 757 from Newark to Dublin in October for the convenience of flying nonstop. But the experience was so miserable, he said, that he purposely avoided 757s when booking another trip to Ireland this summer.

The lack of psychological space was part of the issue. “To go that long, it just seems so small,” said Mr. Remy who was stuck next to “a very large woman” on the way east and to a drunken man on the way home. With only one aisle, “there was no escape route” to take a break from his seatmates or to get around the cart when it came down the aisle. And after having to squint at “a really small screen” for the in-flight movie, Mr. Remy said, “it felt like it was 1965.”

Mr. Remy is flying a two-aisle 767 with a stopover before landing in Dublin for his trip next month. Though a couple of flights on 757s were cheaper, Mr. Remy, said, he wasn’t tempted. “I said no way.”


Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
People have to stop in the aisle, whether you have one or two to load and unload bags from the overhead and when they do, the flow of traffic stops because you cannot get past them. That is why airlines load from the back, to try and minimize the impact of those stops. Being able to get past them to your seat should increase turn times, even if you have less aisles, because traffic doesn't stop.

Ah... but you have two aisles so you are basically boarding twice as quickly (starting from the back). Plus, with much more overhead storage it is far easier and quicker to find a place for bags. Likewise for disembarking... in fact it is even easeir than boarding. You just have to compare the difference between boarding/disembarking on a 757-300 and a 767-200... even though the 762 has a center seat in the middle section, it takes less time.... and there is no contest for pax preference!!

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 16):
I find it very unlikely that a twin ailse 2+2+2 could be made as weight or aerodynamically efficient as a single ailse.

Y1 is STILL a few years off from conceptual design... and advances are being made in materials as we type!  Smile

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 16):
A couple of Red Herrings! A seven abreast twin aisle 2+3+2 could be made a lot narrower than the current 767,and would have much better efficiency than the 2+2+2 which I think is a non starter.

Possibly but too wide in my estimation and how would it have much better efficiency?!?! If at all!



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30641 posts, RR: 84
Reply 18, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 17046 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 17):
1) No one likes sittine in a middle seat... PERIOD!!!

Unless the fare they pay is lower.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 17):
2) No one likes having to scrabble over 2 pax (or be climbed over) by the window seat pax during boarding or during the flight.

Unless the fare they pay is lower.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 17):
3) In a twin aisle, the lavs at either end are closer compared to a single aisle.

Nothing stops the airlines from putting a lav at the front of the cabin on a narrowbody except the desire to fit more seats in that space.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 17):
4) Some airlines have done away with using the trolleys on several flights and just run back and forth to the galleys with drinks on trays, etc. This is even easier and (and would be even more feasible on more flights) with a twin aisle.

I generally only see this in the main cabin on lightly-loaded narrowbodies. Otherwise it takes too long to take an order, go back to the galley, fill the order, deliver it, and repeat over and over again.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 17):
Ah... but you have two aisles so you are basically boarding twice as quickly (starting from the back). Plus, with much more overhead storage it is far easier and quicker to find a place for bags. Likewise for disembarking... in fact it is even easeir than boarding. You just have to compare the difference between boarding/disembarking on a 757-300 and a 767-200... even though the 762 has a center seat in the middle section, it takes less time.... and there is no contest for pax preference!!

If twin aisles were really preferable, I imagine Airbus would have done it with the A320, since they started with a clean-sheet and really could have one-upped the 737. Instead, they went for a bit more comfort and a lot more technology.

Also, a twin aisle plane will be larger and heavier requiring larger engines and require the fuselage to sit higher off the ground, increasing fuel burn and making cargo/bag loading harder since most of the time they do not use LDs or pallets.

Time will tell, of course, but my money remains on a single-aisle plane.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3392 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 16800 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
If twin aisles were really preferable, I imagine Airbus would have done it with the A320, since they started with a clean-sheet and really could have one-upped the 737. Instead, they went for a bit more comfort and a lot more technology.

The 737RS can do a twin aisle 6Y layout with only a minimal addition in size over a A320. This is mostly due to carbon barrel construction allowing for thinner sidewalls, and more exotic shapes.

If Boeing goes for a LD3 capacity on the lower deck, then the twin aisle will be nearly "free" as it will demand a certain diameter. Even so I expect most airlines to use a 3 seat module for 3+3 with the module being common with their widebody of choice. So if they run 17.2 seats on a 787, then expect the same hardware in the 737RS. Run 18" 3-2-3 on your 787? or have A350? same seats in the 737RS.

To be blunt lets apply the 767 => 787 lesson. They didn't just barely increase the size to cover that market, but made it almost the size of a 777!!!! So clearly in the past they saw the advantage when making this jump in operating efficiency to go ahead and jump up in size too.

My BIG question is will they get enough width to do 2-1-2 with a domestic F/J seat... if they can.... OH YAH airlines are going to love that. I suspect though that 1-2-1 will still make them very happy as its a dramatic increase in perceived luxury with 0.00% effort/cost to the airline.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6126 posts, RR: 34
Reply 20, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16753 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Unless the fare they pay is lower.

That has no relevance. Airlines price their tix on travel demand patterns not by seat location.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
If twin aisles were really preferable, I imagine Airbus would have done it with the A320, since they started with a clean-sheet and really could have one-upped the 737. Instead, they went for a bit more comfort and a lot more technology.

Not so. Although Airbus did look a twin aisle configuration before settling on just a bit larger cabin than the 737 Classic, it is not at all relevant to use a design decision from over 25 years ago today... so much has changed in the industry in so many ways!!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Also, a twin aisle plane will be larger and heavier requiring larger engines and require the fuselage to sit higher off the ground, increasing fuel burn and making cargo/bag loading harder since most of the time they do not use LDs or pallets.

No it won't, particularily with the advances in materials and designs over the past few years and the next 3-4 years before the next narrow body is launched.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Time will tell, of course, but my money remains on a single-aisle plane.

I wouldn't bet on anything at this point... it is far too early!!  Smile



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3392 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16658 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Also, a twin aisle plane will be larger and heavier requiring larger engines and require the fuselage to sit higher off the ground, increasing fuel burn and making cargo/bag loading harder since most of the time they do not use LDs or pallets.

The larger engines is what will require the plane to sit higher, not the fuselage. Even with a 787 style wing box, the 737RS will have to sit much higher to put in the newest engines than the current 737.


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1546 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 16157 times:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 17):
Possibly but too wide in my estimation and how would it have much better efficiency?!?! If at all!

This has got to do with more seats in proportion to the "non revenue" but essential aisle(s) area.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 15876 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
an interior cabin (not necessarily fuselage) width 4-6" wider then the A320 to allow 3+3 at 18" with an aisle large enough for two people or to pass each other during (dis)embarking or to get past the service cart in-flight.

If it's gotta be a single isle please God hear us poor folk that must fly economy and convince A and B to give us some wider seats and a wider isle! We're worthy!


User currently offlineDTWAGENT From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1283 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 15745 times:

Does anyone have a drawing of what the Y1 is going to look like?

Chuck


25 Planemaker : Ah, OK, I see what you were trying to say... structural efficiency... as in the 737 is structurally more efficient than the A320. But it would have a
26 DL767captain : what about more of an oval ( wider) for the twin aisle
27 Planemaker : That has been suggested in a few posts above already. As to what degree it is feasible depends on several factors but there is no doubt that, if ache
28 N844AA : Absolutely. Like I said, I think Boeing could run a very successful narrowbody program based on three airlines alone. If they can sell the aircraft t
29 Grantcv : I think a twin aisle 2+2+2 configuration could be worse that 3+3 when it comes to embarking/disembarking - especially on airlines like Southwest wher
30 Planemaker : And that is another reason why Boeing feels no pressure to accelerate any Y1 EIS dates. When they do launch it will be interesting to see how many ye
31 DL767captain : What is this "rest of the world" i have never heard of this!! Everyone knows that we are the world! ha ha
32 Tdscanuck : All the Yellowstone airplanes are conventional wing/tube. Supposedly, it's going pretty well. The gearbox for the JSF is much more difficult and that
33 Post contains images Planemaker : FYI, alot of people use Y1 and 737RS interchangeably on A.net. By the time Y1/737RS is launched in 3-4 years the barrels will certainly be CFRP... th
34 Tdscanuck : Because fuselage width and seat layout aren't the same thing. I didn't say you won't see wider fuselages, I said you won't see 2-2-2. Aisle space doe
35 Post contains images Planemaker : Then why are manufacturers making aisles wider????? It can be made virtually equivalent but, moreover, it doesn't even have to be... the wider fuse E
36 XT6Wagon : hahah whatever WN orders will be a conventional tube & wing with podded engines below the wings as seen 50years ago, and proven every minute since th
37 Post contains images AirframeAS : The manufacturer's actually don't. WN's seats may not be the same seats as HP's seats or AS's seats. There are all kinds of seats available out there
38 Planemaker : Sorry but you're absolutely wrong! WNs seat width is the same width as every single other 737 operator... 17" or 17.2 "!!! You should visit a few air
39 Post contains links DEVILFISH : It seems P&W and partner MTU are not only concerned about lowering fuel burn, they're also busying themselves with something else..... http://www.fli
40 Post contains images AirframeAS : WN's 733 seats vs. HP's 733 seats: Totally different widths give or take an inch or two. I've worked for both airlines, I should know. I've found HP'
41 Post contains images Planemaker : Buddy, you are wrong!!! And for someone who says that they've worked for both airlines that it is not impressive at all! I would have guessed that yo
42 Tdscanuck : They're not. They're making the fuselage wider. Both Boeing and Airbus have marketed this (correctly) as "You can have a wider aisle!" The majority o
43 Post contains links and images Keesje : I think the question with Boeing and Airbus at this moment is wether to go with 1 or 2 narrowbody types. As in other threads mentioned probably ~100-
44 Post contains images Planemaker : They are!!!! Buddy, at least use some FACTS and not meaningless comments that are void of context!!!!! You really don't know what you are talking abo
45 Post contains images Stitch : A320 family planes offer the option of 3+3 at 18" seat width and a "normal" aisle or 3+3 at 17" width (matching the 737) and a 6" wider aisle. It has
46 Post contains images AirframeAS : Oh! Okay....then my cousin's husband who was one of the seat managers at Boeing (now with the F.A.A.) is wrong. Ok, I'll take your word for it. And o
47 Baron95 : No middle seat - that is a biggie, particularly if you want to run with load factors in the 85%+ range (which I am convinced will be the norm). Faste
48 Stitch : You can take care of that by boarding WILMA-style (Window, then Middle and then Aisle) like UA now does. I should think an LD3 would fit in a slightl
49 1337Delta764 : Even if the 737RS uses a 2-2-2 layout, I don't think that center overhead bins would really be very important. At least airlines should have the optio
50 Stitch : I would hope Boeing will use deep bins that will take a 25" tall rollaboard wheels-in so folks don't need to "side load" and take up most of the bin s
51 1337Delta764 : Boeing has standardized on using pivot bins for their widebodies, starting with the 777. The 747 and 767 soon switched from shelf bins to pivot bins
52 Post contains images Planemaker : I guess that I hurt someones feelings with my original post so the mods deleted my post... so I'll try not to be as "factual" this time! Your latest
53 Post contains images Stitch : Assuming one can make the fuselage crown "tall" enough to allow them to be seated. You should be able to have a fuselage width almost two feet less t
54 XT6Wagon : Stitch, you can be assured that Boeing knows just how important overhead bin space is in narrowbodies at this time... and the need for it to be 100%
55 Post contains images AirframeAS : I apologize, Mr Plane, but you're incorrect. Like I mentioned earlier, there are many different types of seats that an airline can chose from. One se
56 Brons2 : I don't like his tone, but sorry, he's right. You can't put seats over 17.2" wide on a 737, at least not in Y. There's wouldn't be enough room for th
57 Planemaker : I don't know what it is with you that you can't figure this out??? It is like you are sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la-la I
58 Mrocktor : This is really the biggest argument in favor of the 2-2-2, amazing that folks haven't given it a second thought. Current generation planes were desig
59 Tdscanuck : AirTran 737-700's use an 18" width in Y. Tom.
60 Boeing7E7 : Time at the gate is justificaton enough. Then Boeing must have made a complete mistake building the much wider, but same length 787 to replace the 76
61 Stitch : I know that is what SeatGuru says, but I wonder if the information supplied to them by users is accurate. Does Air Tran use galley carts? If not, the
62 Post contains images AirframeAS : I rest my case. See ya all in the other threads!
63 Tdscanuck : You completely lost me here. The 787 is one seat wider than the 767. The 767 and 787 are neither 2-2-2 nor 3-3. You can't build the 767 or 787 as sin
64 Tdscanuck : I don't think they use carts...I've only flown them once but I'm pretty sure it was drinks on trays and snacks in baskets. Tom.
65 Post contains images Planemaker : Rest your case?? But you stated that WN and HP have a 1" to 2" difference in their seat width... not Airtran!! But, seriously, are you capable of any
66 AirframeAS : You're ignorant. As others have stated, INCLUDING me: Boeing, Airbus, Embraer or any 'Planemaker' (pun intended) do not dictate aisle widths! You kee
67 Post contains images Planemaker : On the one hand, I truly hope that the mods DO NOT ERASE this post as I am not offended in the least bit!! While, on the other hand, your post does,
68 PlanesNTrains : AirframeAS, maybe if someone else asks the question, it will invoke an answer. 1. What are the seat widths in the 733 for HP and WN? 2. With those se
69 Boeing7E7 : That is impossible on a 737. The Aisle would not be able to conform to evacuation standards. Seat Guru is incorrect. The 717's have 18" seats, but no
70 Stitch : At eight-abreast, a 787-8 is right there with a 767-300ER and 787-9 is close to a 767-400ER, but when you go to nine-abreast, the 787's lead is not i
71 Boeing7E7 : It's still an 8 abreast aircraft by design. If an airline opts to screw you with 9 abreast then so be it. That doesn't change the fact that it's 8 ab
72 Post contains images Keesje : How much I would like this from a passenger perspective. But even Boeing will take into consideration what happens if Airbus comes with an similar ca
73 Tdscanuck : AirTran uses Recaro BL3510 seats, same thing as used by some operators in the same configuration on the slightly wider A320. FAR PART 25.815 says the
74 Stitch : No, because at the time the 787 was launched Airbus had at best an equal answer to the 777 (with the A340E) so there was no reason for Boeing to plan
75 Tdscanuck : How do you figure? 737 cabin interior width is 11' 4" (136"). Take out 15" for the minimum FAR aisle width leaves you 60.5" for each seat module. Ass
76 Boeing7E7 : It's 15 inches at the floor, but 20" at a height 25" from the floor - armrest height. Even if the armrest was below 25", the aisle width assuming a 2
77 Tdscanuck : Gotcha, thanks. I finally found the drawings for the Airtran interior...SeatGuru is wrong. AirTran seats are 17.29". I withdraw all previous statemen
78 Voltage : And yet the 757-300 sold 55 units and the 767-200 sold 128 units (not even counting the 121 -200ER orders). So what does that tell us about what airl
79 Post contains images Planemaker : After getting use to AriframeAS' evasive and blustering responses ...I really have to tip my hat to you for coming back on here and acknowledging the
80 Post contains images Keesje : I think Airbus dimensioned / widened the XWB after it became clear most airlines decided to do 9 abreast on the 787. Not more comfortable then e.g. t
81 Planemaker : You forget that the A330 is already flown 9 abreast... so why is the 787 wider than the A330... and the XWB even wider than the 787? All three have t
82 Stitch : Passenger comfort, I imagine, since a 787 in 9-abreast will have about an extra two inches of seat width on the A330/A340 in nine-abreast (and about
83 Keesje : The 3-3-3 A330 and 2-4-2 767 are not the most used configurations. Only some leisure / charter airlines. The majority of economy class configurations
84 Boeing7E7 : No, they designed it around 8 abreast performance and economics. If you chose to do 9 abreast, you create better seat cost economics at the expense o
85 Post contains images Planemaker : Yes, but the point is that the A330 already accomodates 9 abreast... so why would B and A "waste" space and weight on their new offerings??? (Stitch,
86 Grantcv : How wide would the fuselage of the Y1 need to be to accomodate a 2+2+2 seating configuration with deep enough overhead bins that allow the typical rol
87 Post contains images Planemaker : Good question... no definitive answers yet (obviously) but one can speculate as has been done on various previous threads! One possibility, for examp
88 Tdscanuck : All of your posts were explaining why you couldn't have a 2" variance (you'd end up with a 14" or 8" aisle, which is obviously too small). It wasn't
89 Mrocktor : Agreed. The rational argument against that proposition is that the 2-2-2 need not outperform the 3-3 in the aerodynamic sense of the word "perform" i
90 Tdscanuck : Absolutely agreed re: the operational advantage. If it can materialize, the business case would work. The plane would still be a worse aerodynamic pe
91 Mrocktor : Many think like you, but I disagree. I have no tabulated data, but I have seen too many reports of "E-jet creep" to believe comfort is irrelevant. E-
92 Tdscanuck : I don't believe "E-jet creep" is irrelevant and I don't believe that comfort is irrelevant. I just believe that comfort only becomes relevant after p
93 Post contains images Mrocktor : If the customer is smart enough and goes through the trouble of choosing the better plane when prices are equal, that means that he attributes value t
94 Tdscanuck : Agreed. This was my tacit assumption that you've made explicit. I think the growth of LCC's, climbing load factors and absolute numbers in the face o
95 MMEPHX : If Y1 is to replace 737/320 size aircraft is a 2-2-2 or 2-3-2 really feasible? Looking at a fairly typical 150 seat layout for A320, with 12F and 138Y
96 MMEPHX : ..and before anyone jumps on me...I meant to say A319.
97 Post contains images Mrocktor : So we disagree, but can understand each other. I can live with that
98 XT6Wagon : The "twin aisle" looks very good to me as it CAN be done with 17.2" seats for only a modest increase in frontal area over the A320, area almost certa
99 Post contains images Planemaker : No, I brought up the FAA evacuation requirement and the FAR min aisle requirement before Boeing7E7... he just spoon fed it to you. So as I said, you
100 Tdscanuck : The whole 2" wider thread didn't come from me. Last I checked, 18" is only 1" wider than 17". No, they come from you in Reply 35. I don't use them un
101 Boeing7E7 : About 164" with 18.25" seat widths and two 18" aisles measured at the floor and 22" above the armrest. Perfect for containers on the larger variants.
102 1337Delta764 : To make more room for overhead storage, pivot bins may be preferrable over shelf bins. Boeing has standardized on pivot bins for all of their widebod
103 DeltaDC9 : Very likely it will Boeing thinks this may be the way to go. Never say never! Yes we might I am unclear on oll the advantages and disadvantages, but
104 Post contains images Planemaker : And this is how you start tangents and waste bandwith. I responded equally to 1" and 2"... the same logic applies... and specifically directed the 18
105 Mrocktor : Is this personal dispute really necessary Planemaker? Anyone interested can read the thread and see who said what. I believe your continued insistence
106 Planemaker : Mrocktor, it is not personal. It is the nature of this forum to "engage an argument" that is incorrect or false. And it is also the very nature of thi
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
KLM Orders Boeing 777-300ER And More posted Tue Nov 14 2006 21:47:08 by Kevin
Boeing 737-900ER And Lion Airlines posted Tue Oct 31 2006 16:45:47 by W3ndytj4n
Boeing Straightens Up And Flies Right posted Mon May 1 2006 06:51:25 by B777LR
Why I Love Boeing & Airbus (and What I Don't Like) posted Sun Mar 5 2006 22:40:44 by JAAlbert
Air India New Boeing Delivery Schedules And Routes posted Fri Feb 17 2006 20:36:36 by Karan69
UPS Boeing 747-100 And There Noise Level. posted Sat Jul 30 2005 23:30:20 by 747400sp
Boeing 787 Mood And Dinning Lighting posted Thu Jul 28 2005 23:03:03 by Squirrel83
CO Boeing 737-500s And Norfolk posted Mon Jul 25 2005 21:26:02 by Highliner2
Boeing: 787-9, 747ADV And A New Single Aisle posted Wed Mar 2 2005 18:49:08 by AirFRNT
What Operated Boeing 377, 707 And 747? posted Sat Feb 26 2005 03:59:17 by 747400sp
Boeing Model 40 And The 787 posted Fri May 14 2010 12:39:51 by OldAeroGuy
Boeing Links BA038 And Delta Rolls Royce Incidents posted Tue Feb 3 2009 12:01:58 by SInGAPORE_AIR
Boeing To Market And Support Mitsubishi MRJ posted Thu Sep 4 2008 15:25:05 by LAXintl
Boeing Congrats Airbus And SQ On A380 Delivery posted Tue Oct 16 2007 10:29:38 by NYC777
Why Is The Boeing 720 Weaker And Lighter? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 16:57:56 by Duke