Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing's 737 Replacement 2x2x2 - Not Very Smart!  
User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4052 posts, RR: 13
Posted (3 years 9 months ago) and read 38678 times:

Air Transport World writes that Boeing is pushing a twin-aisle replacement for the 737 with 2x2x2 internal configuration. Seats would be 17.7 inches wide and aisles would be 18 inches wide.

While I am a big fan of Boeing, such a configuration is really not clever. Aisles are not revenue-generating surfaces. Aisles exist to provide access.

There is a much better configuration for exactly the same cross-section and it is the old 3x3 single aisle. Were I to order this 737 replacement, I would configure it eliminating one aisle providing 18 inches to play with.

Six inches would go to the single aisle remaining, making it 24 inches wide. This would enable quick boarding as it is wide enough for passengers to reach the rear of the cabin passing by other passengers stowing their bags on overheads.

Then there would be another 12 inches to distribute to the 6 seats per row, making each 19.7 inches wide. Those would be very comfortable seats even at a very tight pitch. Even 29 inches pitch may be acceptable.


Stop pop up ads
227 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinebrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months ago) and read 38661 times:

No, 29 inch pitch is not acceptable no matter how wide the seats are.


Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineAirport From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months ago) and read 38585 times:

I would make it a point to fly on an airline that offered an aircraft in a 2x2x2 configuration over any of the alternatives, even if I had to pay more. People were shown to be paying a premium to fly on the A380, it would be interesting to see the market reaction to a 2x2x2 737 replacement.

In any case, considering we're talking about an aircraft that won't fly for a very long time, I don't think there is near enough information for us mere enthusiasts to come to a conclusion that a particular configuration is smart or not. If it was so obviously not smart, then Boeing wouldn't be pushing for it.

Cheers,
Anthony/Airport


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months ago) and read 38512 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well I don't see why Boeing can't offer airlines the choice of 3x3 or 2x2x2 if they do indeed want to use a fuselage that wide.

User currently offlineMPDPilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 998 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months ago) and read 38503 times:

This is interesting. Boeing could either do very well or screw themselves into a cabin thats too wide. It all depends on what the airlines want because if they build it wide enought for 2x2x2 they lock them selves into that configuration and if Airbus does their redo at 3x3 with a narrow cabin will beat them on weight easily. It could however change the airline industry forever though and make 2x2x2 the standard and Airbus would be forced to upgrade the narrowbody fleet sooner to stay competitive.

I guess just don't see airlines getting behind this. Even if they can get the 20% lower costs that they want with this configuration I think airlines will just say why not make it 10in narrower and get 24% or something. I just think there is too much risk in going the 2x2x2 route, but maybe airlines feel differently.



One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
User currently offlineVS11 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months ago) and read 38501 times:

Quoting incitatus (Thread starter):
While I am a big fan of Boeing, such a configuration is really not clever. Aisles are not revenue-generating surfaces. Aisles exist to provide access.

I would disagree. Unless you are putting more seats i.e. 7 instead of 6, you are not generating more revenue. 2x2x2 has many benefits - more comfort for the pax, allowing pax to walk around the cabin - imagine 5-6 hour flights in current A320 or B737s, more comfort for the cabin crew, allowing for speedier and less clumsy service. I think it is a great idea.


User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2465 posts, RR: 44
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months ago) and read 38499 times:

I'm not very knowledgeable on aircraft configurations. But wouldn't a configuration of 2-2-2 give the option to make the aircraft shorter as it would give them a bit more width instead of the length. ?
Sorry about the confusion edit

[Edited 2011-03-04 12:14:21]


On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4521 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months ago) and read 38371 times:

I think, since the advent of the 787, that Boeing is seriously factoring the idea of "comfort sells" into their equations for a new airframe. The airframe may have a slightly higher CASM, but the airframe might also offset that by appealing to people who value comfort. However, I think the vast majority of travelers do not know how to tell the differences between aircraft and will not care. As long as the price is right.

Despite this, there might be something else up Boeing's sleeve. Consider that the 787, originally intended to be 8-abreast, is now quickly becoming a 9-abreast plane for more airlines. What if the 797 is offered by Boeing with two aisles, but the airlines instead opt for a wider single aisle and squeeze one more seat into where the other aisle would have been?

I'm thinking airlines, such as Ryanair, might want to configure this aircraft with three seats on one side, four on the other. This is absolutely unacceptable from a passenger's standpoint, but from an airline's economic standpoint, they may like the idea of a wider sardine can to pack us all into. It's just a theory, but I could see it happening. In this case, Boeing gets the good PR for offering a wider plane, while discount carriers that really dont care about comfort because they advertise based on lower fares, get to increase their revenue. Again, just a theory.


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17786 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months ago) and read 38345 times:

Quoting incitatus (Thread starter):
This would enable quick boarding as it is wide enough for passengers to reach the rear of the cabin passing by other passengers stowing their bags on overheads.

Without doing the math, I'm not sure how "quick boarding" gets you enough aircraft time to outweigh the empty aisle you're flying around the sky at $100+ fuel the rest of the day, even for someone like WN.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months ago) and read 38283 times:

If Boeing can get the 2X2X2 configuration to work then more power to them.

I would guess two major Boeing 737 operators, South West and Alaska wouldn't mind the 2X2X2 if it can get them quicker turn-around time.

And as VS11 pointed out, two aisles makes for greater maneuverability around galley carts for those longer trans-con flight as it seems airlines are doing more and more with the 737.

Quoting incitatus (Thread starter):
This would enable quick boarding as it is wide enough for passengers to reach the rear of the cabin passing by other passengers stowing their bags on overheads.

I don't know, American butts tends to be wider than the rest of the world      

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineworkhorse From France, joined Jul 2005, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months ago) and read 38177 times:

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 7):
I'm thinking airlines, such as Ryanair, might want to configure this aircraft with three seats on one side, four on the other.

That wouldn't be legal. AFAIK, you can't have seats separated by more than 2 other seats from the aisle as per FAA, JAA and whatever else rules.


User currently offlinebohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2742 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months ago) and read 38133 times:

A 2X2X2 configuration vs 3X3 means a wider fuselage for the same amount of passengers. A wider fuselage means more drag. More drag means more fuel needed to go from point A to B. More fuel costs airlines more $$$$$. It ain't gonna happen.

BTW Airbus had a similar proposal when they were developing the A320. It didn't happen either.


User currently offlinebtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 579 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months ago) and read 38039 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Thought this may be of interest. Am sure it was mentioned in a thread some time ago but couldn't find it.

Basically a boeing patent for an elliptical body aircraft with seven abreast seating...

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/...-elliptical-two-aisle-narrow-body/

Make of it what you will but certainly addresses some of the questions above. Whether is would be efficient, is another matter but the technology is there (composites, lighter seating, alloys, engines etc).



146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently offlinehiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2177 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months ago) and read 37992 times:

number one most requested seat..an aisle. number two is window. least wanted a center. 2x2x2 no centers and 2 out of 3 seats are aisle. hits all the hot buttons and 'survey said'.

User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1160 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months ago) and read 37841 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 8):
Without doing the math, I'm not sure how "quick boarding" gets you enough aircraft time to outweigh the empty aisle you're flying around the sky at $100+ fuel the rest of the day, even for someone like WN.

By a) squeezing in another trip per day thanks to the quick turnaround, and/or b) by generating extra revenue (either fares or loads or both) by marketing "no middle seat anywhere".

I'm not saying that either of these must necessarily be successful, but they are certainly possibilities to consider.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7034 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months ago) and read 37845 times:

Quoting incitatus (Thread starter):
While I am a big fan of Boeing, such a configuration is really not clever. Aisles are not revenue-generating surfaces. Aisles exist to provide access.

You miss a couple of points. A second aisle vastly speeds boarding and deboarding times, cutting turnaround significantly. Also, a wider fuselage gives more cargo room, and with fewer passengers per square feet, a lot more extra space for revenue cargo as opposed to baggage.

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 7):
What if the 797 is offered by Boeing with two aisles, but the airlines instead opt for a wider single aisle and squeeze one more seat into where the other aisle would have been?

Not possible; evacuation requirements prohibit having to cross more than 2 seats to get to an aisle.

With all that said, I believe that economics is going to be the big driver of the design; they MUST beat the CASM of the A320NEO by a significant margin (at least 5%) to make the effort worthwhile. If they can do that with 2-2-2 seating (which I would love, by the way) great. But I don't think it will work-just too much extra weight and drag.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineBMIFlyer From UK - England, joined Feb 2004, 8810 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 37644 times:

Guys,

Aren't we jumping the gun a bit with the whole "the plane will be too wide" statement?

[Edited 2011-03-04 13:26:08]


Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3756 posts, RR: 27
Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 37612 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It may be that design wise looking at the new fuselage the this width increase is not a significant weight or aerodynamic drawback.. and actually may make the manufacturing process easier and cheaper.... it may also be that the cargo bay is driving some of this as well as the longer gear (don't know how that is an impact.. it's just a thought).

User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9706 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 37505 times:

From reading the actual article, the only facts in it is that Boeing has investigated a widebody replacement for the 737 and that it is not denying anything. The authors of the article make up the 2-2-2 concept based on old McDonnell Douglas information dating back over 20 years. So people can debate 2-2-2 as much as they want, but there is no tangible evidence that it is any more likely than any other configuration.

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...t-737-replacement-be-announced-par



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 37372 times:

why not use 2-3-2 for a Y1 that ranges from 140-230 seats ? better than that infinitely long sardine known as 753 !!!!

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 37315 times:

Quoting incitatus (Thread starter):
Air Transport World writes that Boeing is pushing a twin-aisle replacement for the 737 with 2x2x2 internal configuration.

Where do you read 2x2x2 in the ATW article?
http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...t-737-replacement-be-announced-par

I read the rumoured Boeing design as permitting 2x3x2 seating. The relevant paragraph reads as follows. Note the last sentence in particular.

Boeing also floated the twin-aisle 180-seat concept in 1987 with its 7J7 and showed a full cabin mockup at that year's Paris Air Show. It took the widebody concept further with a 181-in. cabin width that would permit 2-3-2 seating, 17-in.-wide seats and 18-in. aisles in coach. It is this cross-section that insiders at Boeing tell ATW the company is focused on.


User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 37103 times:

We need someone to do a cross section study to determine the determine the surface area of an elipse that accomodates 2x2x2 seating and a standard baggage container below vs a cicular cross section with 3x3 with the same standard container below.

The answer may be very similar.


User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2101 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 36947 times:

Another reason that 2-2-2- might appeal is that it gives more overhead stowage, especially with pivotted bins. This would further help turnaround times, as carryon will be quicker and easier to stow, which might appeal to a lot of the LCCs.

A 2-2-2 configuration might suggest that Being think anything smaller than an A320/738 is not worth chasing in the Y1 design, so go after the A320/A321/738/739/752/753 market.



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 36963 times:

So, if scaling down the 787 composite fuselage is not efficient, then why not scale up the 797 cross section? How interesting!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):

I read the rumoured Boeing design as permitting 2x3x2 seating

Then I can see the 2X2X2 for business class???  

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 36733 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 21):
We need someone to do a cross section study to determine the determine the surface area of an elipse that accomodates 2x2x2 seating and a standard baggage container below vs a cicular cross section with 3x3 with the same standard container below.

The answer may be very similar.

Awnsering my own post. How wide would a 797 have to be in 2x2x2 with A320 comfort? A320 3x seat width - 62" x2 plus 19" aisle - total 143"

Assume you use A320 Wide Seats your 2x Seat Set would be 42"x3 plus 2x 19" aisle's or a total of 164" or a minimum of 156" if you used the minimum Aisle Width of 15".

Let's use 17" for comfort but assume you pick up 2" by using 787 Insulation and the ribs can be thinner due to the high strength of the carbon.

So then you have 158" required or 15" more than a A320 or 7.5" per side.

Who here thinks that you couldn't trim 7.5" off the bottom and Top of an A320 Cross Section to get the same surface area in an eliptical 2x2x2 Fuselage and still accomodate standard A320 containers, giving you no increase in drag over a A320 cross section?

Although the floor beams would be 15" longer I would hope modern Composite construction allows you to make them thinner, allowing you to pick up a few there too. Although when you think about it the containers below are no wider so the unsupported span would be no wider than an A320.

Makes sense to me. If there is any increase in drag at all, it's absolutely minor


25 flylku : It would be more comfortable and faster to board. Faster turns mean more revenue. ... but they won't do that. ... agreed. People get bigger and seats
26 WNCrew : As a responsible, healthy, physically fit traveller I don't think it should just be the responsibility of the airlines to build bigger seats when #1
27 petrhsr : I actually think that 2x2x2 would be very successful, and I fail to see how that config would be any less profitable than the traditional 3x3, since t
28 MaverickM11 : Right, but that brief amount of extra time you squeeze out has to pay for flying an extra aisle around for the rest of the day.
29 AUSisAwesome : I think that Boeing is looking into the future. While that idea may not be so smart today, it may be when the aircraft will actually fly in about 10 y
30 SEPilot : The problem is that pressurization tries to force the fuselage cross section round, and you have to resist that. The first way would be with the floo
31 MSPNWA : A twin aisle 737 replacement is very intriguing. From a passenger perspective it sounds great. I'd be hugely in favor of that.
32 AirNZ : Sorry, but could you enlarge upn how it "could change the airline industry forever", and why would it make it the "standard"? This is configuration w
33 IMissPiedmont : The seat tracks are installed as part of the fuselage build, you couldn't really economically offer that as an option.
34 morrisond : Maybe, but maybe Boeing has figured out that because the composite needs to be thicker to withstand impact, it's strong enough to resist the circular
35 DLSLC : I'm sure Boeing knows a lot better than we do. I can assure you they did not think of this overnight. There is something they have found in their stud
36 Post contains images dfwrevolution : The outboard seat tracks on the 777 can be fitted with either 2-seat benches or 3-seat benches depending on if the customer configures for 2-5-2 or 3
37 Post contains images Stitch : I'm not referring to it as a retrofit option, but as a choice at time of construction.
38 1337Delta764 : I wonder if the 787 seat tracks will support 2-5-2. I know that 2-4-2, 3-2-3, and 3-3-3 are supported, however, I haven't heard anything about 2-5-2.
39 Braniff727Ultra : I would love to see either the 2x2x2 or a 2x3x2 twin 737 replacement. With as previously mentioned all the transcon routes now loaded up with the 737
40 md80fanatic : I have a great idea! How about a longish 3x2?
41 2707200X : Not a bad idea for a growth version of the CSeries a great MD-80/90 replacement. I like the idea of a 2X2x2 aircraft. I wonder if an additional seat
42 BMI727 : Because either way you are going to be wasting space, and therefore weight. They could make up some of it with increased cargo capacity, but if you h
43 learjet1969 : One of the primary reasons for this design is the growing waist line of the worlds populations. 3X3 seating really does not work comfortably any more,
44 robo65 : No one would have to sit in a middle seat, everyone would have either a window or aisle. That would make it popular just for that reason. We will have
45 UAL747DEN : I don't understand how some of you can say that Boeing is wrong and that it would be more efficient to run a narrowbody, blah blah blah....! Do any of
46 crownvic : I think it is a fantastic idea going 2x2x2...Lots of flexibility here. 1) Think of the long term...This a/c is going to become a huge family of sub ty
47 Post contains images bikerthai : The first time I read this, I though it interesting and that you may have a point. But then I remember . . . at altitude, the pressure inside the air
48 bikerthai : And the experience with design an ovoid fuselage may pay dividend if and when they have to design a pseudo blended wing aircraft. There is a lot to l
49 JAAlbert : I'm neither an aviation nor engineering expert - which is why I feel I should be commenting on this thread: It would be great, especially with the 787
50 Blueman87 : ugly A320NEO just won my vote
51 Braniff727Ultra : Excuse me? I need to correct myself? I DO love the Bay Area!! SFO is a great airport and yes, I did book our flights to & fro on UA and yes, SFO
52 Post contains images MCIGuy : Uh-uh, DL flies a 744 ATL-HNL.
53 woodsboy : My question is regarding overhead bin space. Would the 2x2x2 config have an entire additional section of overhead bins along the center spine? If so,
54 pylon101 : Single aisle aircraft and two aisle aircraft are two different worlds. By 2-2-2 configuration Boeing would set a new standard. The standard where "wid
55 IndianicWorld : 2X2X2 isnt a bad idea, but its all a matter of the finer details. I like the thinking, but whether the figures add up is another story.
56 Post contains images MCIGuy : Absolutely! I know I'd give preference to airlines with such equipment. I wouldn't pay a lot more, but I'd look for this plane.
57 ADent : They need to do something. How long will a 737-800 turn take on WN? How about a -900? I personally think a 24" wide aisle will probably be the answer.
58 thediplomat : I can see the 2-2-2- becoming a 2-3-2, and there will be nothing comfortable about that.
59 cosmofly : If Boeing is doing a 2x2x2, it is safe to assume that they must also have 4x3 in mind for the supper LCCs. I wonder if some partial BWB features would
60 thediplomat : For the euroLCC's - Can the wider aircraft work at STN, DUB and LTN in the morning peaks or will it require a reduction in contact stands at the airpo
61 PlanesNTrains : Fine. Then lose customers. It's entirely up to the airline. If 70% of your customer base can't use your product, you need to make a decision - say "s
62 scbriml : I doubt any airline ordered the 787 because of the alleged comfort benefits for the pax.[Edited 2011-03-04 23:43:29]
63 Stitch : Bair himself said you're not going to see a long-range "797" to replace the 757-200 / 767-200 family because the weight trade-offs are too high. A ro
64 lamedianaranja : Great idea! No empty middle seats left and then having to seat 2 persons behind each other because those middles are all that's left. Also speeds up t
65 Stitch : Boeing's "Kermit Cruiser" concept looked a bit "wide" for a 3x3 narrowbody, though I do not expect Boeing to adopt the design (forward-swept wings and
66 thediplomat : Especially when they then squeezed in an extra seat in economy! So is fueling and cargo loading twice as fast also? Pax boarding is only one part of
67 wn700driver : Can't happen. You're more than two seats from an aisle, and that won't fly with FAA, EASA, and probably all other regulatory agencies. Ignorant post.
68 tsugambler : Actually, they're not. The bins on the 3x side are deeper than those on the 2x side. I've experienced this first hand on many AA MD-80s.
69 Post contains images kmz : i think it will be a 2*3*2 quick boarding, extra capacity, good potential for growth versions and comfortable intercontinental flight configuration o
70 BlueSky1976 : A fuselage cross-section that would allow a choice between 3x3 with wide seats and 2x2x2 with narrow ones would be a great idea. Ryanair turns around
71 Schweigend : Are we talking about the old blended-wing-body concept? That is what it sounds like, with a 2-2-2 seating arrangement being mentioned. And, a 2-3-2 c
72 Navigator : On flights shorter than 3 hours I do not think people care about if the airplane has 2x2x2 configuration or not. Personally I think Boeing should conc
73 pylon101 : BWB - hardly so. It would be too much for one project IMHO. I am sorry to repeat my own words again: 1 aisle - 2 aisle are different worlds. Listen, I
74 Schweigend : Well, the most recent (conservative) word from Boeing is that they'll stay with a single-aisle design, 3x3, but everything will be wider. I interpret
75 IndianicWorld : TBH, more width just gives greater opportunities for airline to try and squeeze more seats in. It hardly ever comes out as anything more enjoyable fo
76 Schweigend : Oh, no -- not 4-3 seating!
77 Post contains images IndianicWorld : Unfortunately, such things are always on the cards if you give too much tolerance for airlines to try
78 pylon101 : Boeing will be taking as much time for announcement as possible. And impossible. If they go with 2-2-2 design - it will just annihilate 320NEO program
79 Larshjort : As it has been stated before, it is not possible to do a 4-3 layout. You must not be more than two seats from an aisle. /Lars
80 MCIGuy : No, this has been ruled out. This has been ruled out, too, as more expensive than necessary. They're talking about a transcon range slightly more tha
81 SchorschNG : Faster boarding? Not necessarily! Boarding times are governed by the time required to stow carry-on. And a 2-2-2 arrangement might end up having less
82 NAV20 : Tend to agree. It begins to feel like 'deja vu all over again.' Airbus just might be able to squeeze 2-2-2 into the existing A320, but such a reactio
83 Post contains links and images bikerthai : Now that I have some time to think about it . . . The above statement may be true, but with a two aisles the weight of the extra seat tracks and 3 ro
84 B777LRF : On the statements that a twin-aisle would offer quicker turnrounds. Yes, that is a fact. However, several low-cost airlines are already successfully t
85 lh526 : Given the right total amount of seats two aisles can dramatically shorten turnaround times, hence the plane is in the air more often and can do more
86 NAV20 : Can't help with the perimeters, bikerthai, but I maybe can with the widths. One mustn't forget that both the 737 and the A320 were designed when manu
87 SchorschNG : I think a straight 2-3-2 is the only real option as a 2-2-2 would in the ugly area where additional weight is not compensated by any increase in reven
88 morrisond : From my own post above, if the Carbon fuselage is strong enough to keep the fuselage from ovalizing, there would be 0 increase in drag in a Eliptical
89 Post contains images SEPilot : I assume that they would have overhead bins in the center as well; that would make for MORE overhead space,and faster access to it as well. What take
90 Post contains images bikerthai : I'm sure if they have to, they can figure a way to reduce fueling time, AKA increase volume/rate. Baggage and cargo would require some thought. And w
91 Aircellist : SEPilot, if I may ask... Could you please show a 767 fselage in comparison? And what would be the "let's squeeze everybody" new minimal 2-3-2 fuselage
92 Post contains images flipdewaf : Draw people in the seats, some passengers have heads From what I can tell if boeing goes 2x2x2 and makes the costs match the A320NEO with new tech th
93 NAV20 : What 'A320 replacement' do you mean, flipdewaf? First I've heard of any such thing. Last I knew, Airbus are still trying to achieve satisfactory prod
94 Post contains links TSS : AA installed overhead bin extensions on the "3" (starboard) side of their MD-80s, thus allowing "wheels-in" storage of carry-on bags as on a 737 on t
95 Post contains images SEPilot : But others don't. I tend to agree with you; I believe that more airlines are concerned with minimizing costs in the air as opposed to speeding up tur
96 billreid : Very interesting Blog. First, I do like the 2-2-2 concept from looking at bookings the elimination of the middle seat is great. Watch how seat maps fi
97 Post contains images flipdewaf : Well the one that has been widely predicted around here in the 2025 region. Yes, OK, its not confirmed by airbus so it would never stand up in a cour
98 WNCrew : I'm not an engineer, I was just making a point that if people don't wan tot pay now, how are they expected to pay when the price inevitably increases
99 JayDub : I absolutely believe this is the case when the discussion is about airlines operating long-haul flights. However, an aircraft replacing the B737 will
100 Post contains images astuteman : Which would be fine if they'd actually made this a decision Common people, you have to understand that a decision hasn't actually been made yet.... s
101 Post contains images SEPilot : Yes, they are; but an airplane sitting on the tarmac is not burning fuel. As fuel cost rise (and even though the price rise is due entirely to politi
102 Post contains images kanban : how about planning 17" wide seata on the outside sets, 22' on the two center and charging a lard ass fee to sit there?...
103 Post contains images Stitch : We all pretty much agree a BWB is out, but could Boeing be considering a widebody delta like the "Honeydew" concept, which was designed for low fuel u
104 frmrCapCadet : Very much not an expert, but here are some interesting figures: A 737 replacement,same seat width as 320, wider aisle for faster turn around 6 18 inch
105 PlanesNTrains : I think accommodating A320 containers would be a big selling point to existing A320 operators looking to switch NB suppliers. Not sure how much those
106 odwyerpw : The Oviod structure will generate more lift than purely circular......so perhaps total wing area (sic....weight) can be removed?
107 Post contains links incitatus : Correct. They have not thought this out overnight. It is something of a 1980s solution - this has been thought about for decades. There is no reason
108 Stitch : Or just those with large A320 and 737 fleets. I am sure UA and DL, for example, would be pleased to take delivery of a 797 that they could interline
109 Post contains images tugger : Easy. By making it: . And also the space for 7 seats and one extra revenue passenger per row. If a 2x2x2 if possible, a 2x3x2 will be offered as well
110 PlanesNTrains : Just because it "looks" like an 80's concept doesn't mean it "is" an 80's concept. Absolutely. But changing Coke to New Coke wasn't a $15 billion dol
111 SEPilot : This may work, but would demand more of the ribs to hold the shape. Not impossible, but it would add weight. The lower part would still likely be pri
112 pylon101 : Something tells me that if Boeing goes with 2-2-2 it will be usual circular fuselage. Aerodynamics allow to reduce drag and compensate width. Heard ru
113 Rheinbote : If you look at studies comparing single aisles of different width with twin-aisles you'll see that a wider single aisle around 25'' does the trick wi
114 Stitch : In a single-class configuration, a 767-200ER with 32" pitch can seat 242. A 767-200ER is 6.4m longer than a 737-900ER. So if we shrink the fuselage b
115 dc9northwest : If Boeing goes with a 2-2-2 airframe, I will be delighted as a passenger. It would likely be my favorite airliner. I hope this is a practical project
116 mayor : How about this.......a 1x2x1 configuration in First/Business and 2x3x2 in coach?
117 pylon101 : Stitch, And what your opinon reg. circular vs. oval?
118 kanban : but they also fought the enclosed cockpit... wasn't manly...
119 Stitch : I don't really have one, to be honest. Oval would waste less space in the crown area and lower hold, while still allowing LD3-45's to be used.
120 tdscanuck : That's true as a general statement, but in this particular case it really is (at least) an 80's concept. The 7J7 (scrapped in the early 80's) was sup
121 Viscount724 : Are we talking business or economy class? I thought it was planned for 2-3-2 in Y and 2-2-2 in the premium classes.
122 B777LRF : Would love to see a drawing of a 2-2-2 oval fuselage, which included LD3-45s in the lower-deck. Just to get an impression of what that would look lik
123 PlanesNTrains : Sure. However, the generic seating arrangement from the 80's can be accommodated in new ways today using newer technologies and materials. I think si
124 SEPilot : It would depend on how high the oval was. In the sketches I made above it would not fit (too low) but if that was desired it could be easily accommod
125 SchorschNG : From history (not knowledge ... sadly) I would assume that extra crown area is better than non-optimum cross section. The cross section of a 2-3-2 co
126 stlAV8R : I could not see any North American operators buying this aircraft if it was wide for the simple fact that it wouldn't fit at most airports without cos
127 Stitch : Boeing could add almost two meters to the current 737NG wingspan and still fit within an FAA Group III / ICAO Code C gate. And frankly, I think Boein
128 pylon101 : Wow, if Boeing goes with this project public - it will immediately affect the whole industry. Airbus will have to start a new aircraft from scratch. M
129 RamblinMan : I wouldn't say that... most airport gates where 737s routinely park are able to fit 757s as well, and I doubt this would be any wider. There wasn't m
130 dfwrevolution : AA and FL were both late adopters of the 737NG Blended Winglet because of gate clearance issues. But when fuel prices got high enough, they made the
131 hiflyer : No US carrier uses those units...all gave them up loooong ago (stretch dc8 and 722) due to the expense of specialized ground equipment...weight of th
132 morrisond : The other way to look at this is given that Boeing's made comments that Using Carbon for a NB fuselage means that the Skin is thicker for impact than
133 thediplomat : If it was such a no-brainer it Boeing would have launched it months ago. I don't buy the 'comfort' arguement and I cant see how an extra aisle makes
134 MaverickM11 : You'd still be able to take the same design and make it much more efficient by using a single aisle and stretching it to accommodate the same number
135 Stitch : Well a baggage hold designed to take an LD3-45 would be larger than the one in the 737 (if just), so that could help bulk loading thanks to a bit mor
136 B777LRF : But only at the cost of an enlarged frontal area and a lot of unused crown space, correct?
137 SEPilot : Not necessarily; it depends on where you put the deck in the oval. You can also make it a non-standard shape; oval on top, circular on the bottom, or
138 XT6Wagon : the penalty of "wasted" crown space is way overblown on this site. So far the entire history of commercial plane design has shown that optimizing the
139 BOACCunard : Are you suggesting 1-2-1 in F and 3-3 in Y on the same aircraft?
140 PlanesNTrains : It would seem so. More of a 1-2-1 in F and a 3++3 in Y (where "++" is an extra-wide aisle). -Dave
141 astuteman : That seems to escape a lot of people, as does the fact that Boeing haven't even confirmed a commitment to a new narrowbody yet. None of these decisio
142 thediplomat : I just cant see how 2-2-2- makes sense. Ryanair can turn a 3-3 in 25 minutes with no problems, and the constraints aren't in the cabin anymore - so n
143 B777LRF : Just to put a bit more weight behind the previous poster: To my knowledge the split between carriers using ULDs on A32x, and those who does not, is s
144 pylon101 : Boeing can't take only FR into consideration. Inter-American routes may be quite long. Inter-Asian are even longer. Domestic Rusiian routes are rarely
145 flipdewaf : Yes but as stated before, if B go 2x2x2 and use new tech to keep the casm down then A will go 3x3 with the same/similar tech and beat B hands down on
146 pylon101 : It would be suicidal for Airbus to keep doing last century product in the most profitable sector. From Day One when (and if) Boeing announces 2-2-2 pr
147 wn700driver : They won't. It's the airline business model that will have to adapt to this. I don't care about your views on obesity. What I think is ignorant is th
148 XT6Wagon : My whole point is that the people who endlessly complain about "waste" in a 2-2-2.... I don't recall them remarking the same about the A32x which is
149 B777LRF : Since you don't know how many A32x operators have chosen a containerised configuration, how can you postulate that most thinks it is a waste of space
150 par13del : Times are now changing, but correct me if I'm wrong but was the USA not the largest users of A320 a/c in the world at one point? We can discuss numbe
151 thediplomat : How is this a new standard? Like on the 767? I quoted some carriers - I don't have the full list, but it aint trivial. How is a 2-2-2 more economic t
152 NAV20 : Doesn't seem to be an overly 'diplomatic' comment, thediplomat. As far as I can see, superficially, it's not necessarily more 'economic.' But I'd gue
153 thediplomat : In the same way a 762 is more customer friendly than a 739? Like to see anyone sell 'could very well' to bean counters. Remember the American Airline
154 flipdewaf : The slightly wider fuselage allows the A320 to take LD3s whereas anything over that is not gaining anything until you can perhaps get to the next siz
155 pylon101 : Just an observation. I was wondering about A-320 containers. I was waiting for my QR DME-DOH flght and saw a dozen of A-320 unload/upload in operation
156 NAV20 : Since my field was basically 'marketing,' thediplomat, that's what I had to do most of the time. 'Sell' ideas to the bean-counters. Pleased to say th
157 B777LRF : You probably mistook them for A320s when it actual fact they were A319s. A321 and 320 are, generally speaking, containerised when operated by majors
158 CuriousFlyer : 2x2x2 is an AMAZING idea, kudos to Boeing on that one! Middle seats are absolutely miserable, so he number one advantage is happy passengers. Easier c
159 flipdewaf : Because there is a ~11% increase in floor area required for no extra seats. Fred
160 Stitch : Mainly it just moves the manpower from airside to the baggage facility since you need to load and unload the containers before you send them out and
161 flipdewaf : Yes but a container(s) loaded in 50mins landside can still result in a 25min turnaround whereas a 50minute loading of an aircraft will require at lea
162 PPVRA : So, these are some of my assumptions. . . . . turn around rates are more important on shorter flights and for LCCs. . . . for some airlines that could
163 Post contains images pylon101 : No-no. Those were A-320 Our Qatar, next right - LH, next left - Swiss. And in view there were S7 and some other domestics. telling yah: they all were
164 Post contains images Stitch : I agree it has benefits, especially airside. Any ideas what connection times are like at those airlines? I expect there is a minimum connection time
165 pylon101 : I guess it's the point. Choosing between container and bulk loading they prefer bulk when time is tight.
166 B777LRF : And you don't need to load the baggage on carts, or un-load the same carts onto a baggage belt on arrival? Been to many an airport myself, never seen
167 BMI727 : Same reasons I don't think it will be done now: increased size and weight for marginal at best revenue potential.
168 thediplomat : For European business class 2-2-2 is a product downgrade. today it is sold as 1x1_1x1 (middle seat unsold). If 2x2x2 comes into play - comfort for J c
169 tugger : It would be a wider plane so they would be able offer a superior J product to someone with an aircraft that only allowed one aisle. They would have g
170 thediplomat : How can they offer a superior cabin? European shorthaul J class, with perhaps two exceptions (SU, Malev) have either VGS or fixed Y seating with midd
171 Stitch : There is no reason why an operator could not leave the seat next to them open, so you'd have 1x _1x_x1 and each passenger would have direct access to
172 frmrCapCadet : If you make the assumption that 17 inch seats are of equal comfort, overall, when you are talking 4 aisle seats and 2 window seats versus 2 each wind
173 thediplomat : What you are proposing is reducing seat count by three seats for three J pax, rather than 2 seats for four pax. That is highly in-efficient and would
174 dc9northwest : I don't understand all the negativity against this idea on a.net. If it won't work out financially, Boeing won't build it. If it will, then what's the
175 SEPilot : It is not anti-passenger, it is a response to passengers being anti-paying. It has been proved time and time again that not enough passengers will pa
176 Stitch : No argument there, but it is still an option and if it drives more business to the operator, it will also drive up RASM.
177 dc9northwest : I agree the average passenger is anti-paying, but supposing you have two aircraft with the same performance and same operating costs (otherwise the w
178 BMI727 : The thing is that it will probably be more expensive to operate. Look at the Sonic Cruiser: just about every technology that could have been used to
179 dc9northwest : In this case, I don't think we need to worry. There will be no 2-2-2 if you can't achieve the same economics as with a longer, narrower frame. We'll
180 BMI727 : I think this is probably the case. There is probably a small chance Boeing can make the numbers work, but I think we will end up with a narrowbody. A
181 JoeCanuck : I would expect an airline to use a 1x2x1 configuration for business class, maintaining the 4 across economics. Everybody gets an aisle and you could
182 panais : It will actually become 2_1_2. Which is a better proposition than the 1x1_1x1 than what they have now, where you get a standard economy seat with mor
183 Post contains images seabosdca : This is all that needs to be said on the subject. Boeing did this already. It was called the 762. It had completely uncompetitive economics with 3-3
184 Stitch : That works for airlines like those in the United States who offer First Class / Business Class as a cabin with a seperate seating product. Most Europ
185 MSPNWA : If that were the case without exceptions, the A320 family would never have been able to compete against the 737.
186 davs5032 : I think if you eliminate all middle seats, you can easily get away with narrower seats of "equal comfort." I think most people would agree that a 17"
187 thediplomat : QED.
188 Post contains images enilria : To me it boils down to this. They can't do magic. The cross-section of the airplane determines how much air has to be moved out of the way for the ai
189 Post contains links sirtoby : For me one big question is, if Boeing can please SWA with that configuration. They are integrating the -800 in their fleet now, but the backbone is th
190 pylon101 : Theoretically nobody would oppose this statement. But if we take CRJ - E-195 - SSJ-100 we will see that SSJ-100 is much wider than CRJ and considerab
191 ADent : Really? I sat on a USAir A321 for 45 minutes - mostly waiting for passengers to stuff the overhead bins (with the FAs repeating, repeating, repeating
192 XT6Wagon : There is no possible way in my mind that Boeing will make a plane as small as the 737-700 going into the future. The optimum size is going to jump an
193 flipdewaf : The point is that it isn't a fair fight, if it were the same cost I would go for the more comfortable but unfortunately you don't get something for n
194 Post contains images rheinwaldner : Exactly! Thanks Fred for your convincing work... Thanks also to SEPilot for drawings! Please update your knowledge. I can imagine that Boeing is cons
195 pylon101 : AND NOW WE ARE MOVING TO A NEW THREAD RELATED TO PARIS AIR SHOW. Time to move from rumors to assumptions!!! Hard Monday in Toulouse, I guess.
196 Schweigend : [quote=Stitch,reply=103]We all pretty much agree a BWB is out, but could Boeing be considering a widebody delta like the "Honeydew" concept, which was
197 tdscanuck : That would certainly be true if the only source of fuel burn were fuselage form drag...but it's not. It's entirely possible to build a wider fuselage
198 fun2fly : I think we have to consider what LCC's want...SWA will drive a lot of the new design spec, as will other LCC's (Ryanair, Lionair, etc.) not just DL, A
199 WNCrew : I could be wrong, but I think Ryan Air uses both FWD and AFT doors for boarding and deplaning. This helps substantially. Southwest won''t do this bec
200 JoeCanuck : Drag doesn't necessarily increase proportionally with frontal area. The wing is responsible for significantly more drag than the fuselage. A wider fus
201 Post contains images seabosdca : The A320 family is a few inches wider, a small amount that was easily made up by the A320's superiority in other areas relative to the 737 Classic. A
202 bikerthai : Way to think out of the box! (in this case the tube). The rib will be composite, it can build and optimized to more obscure shapes. Believe me when I
203 Post contains images astuteman : I suspect there's a bit of a difference between the 5" gap between the 787 and A350 (or 2% difference), and the approximately 17" gap (or 12%) even a
204 chautauquasaab : If the Thompson staggered seating system was used, the Boeing 797 wouldn't have to be much wider than an A320...
205 DL797 : False. Those seats in are 42" with 2 across. 42"x3=126. Two aisles at 18"=36. Cabin width would have to be 162". Standard 17" with 2" armrests is bet
206 DL797 : Nice story, but a 140' wingspan on a 150 seat aircraft isn't happening. That's a larger wingspan than the 757 with winglets and it would cause comple
207 Post contains images bikerthai : . . . and always the last in line when space allocation is made. bikerthai
208 Post contains images astuteman : Assuming space allocation IS made..... Rgds
209 747400sp : As somebody who suffered on a few cross country flights on an A320s, I welcome a wider 2x2x2 cabin. A lot of people say 737s & A320s are mostly us
210 Burkhard : If the 797 is built as explained here, most will use a 2-3-2 seating once delivered.
211 Burkhard : All I read there is 2-3-2 seating from the beginning, nothing like 2-2-2. The new aircraft would be about twice as long than the one on the plan. Aga
212 JoeCanuck : Regardless of how efficient a 2-2-2 layout will be, it can never be as efficient as a 3-3 layout....except perhaps at the longest stretch...but certai
213 Burkhard : At least Airbus would not be too much in trouble with A320NEO family versus 737NG as they are and small wide body 797.
214 william : To the arm chair CEO s here, has it occured to you that Boeing has taken this idea to hteir main customers and that they are ok with this? If Boeing d
215 Burkhard : We are sure that what Boeing will present has been backed up by Southwest, American, Delta, Air China, and a few more airlines to be a concept they ca
216 JoeCanuck : Indeed...just because it doesn't make sense to a.netters, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
217 Post contains images pylon101 : No brainer. I was reading 2 threads here + 2 Russian aviation forums where I asked if MS-21 is in stage where it possibly could be widened. Perhaps,
218 Post contains images astuteman : I was querying the comment, rather than the number of threads its appeared on Or perhaps you were typing faster than you were thinking..... Rgds
219 MSPNWA : That's the point I'm making. The A320 and the 737 are both 6 seats across. Although the A320 is wider than the 737, it's advantages make up for the d
220 parapente : It has personally taken me some time to come round to the 2x2x2 idea.But I wonder. Of course such an aircraft would be perfect for everyone - but only
221 Post contains links bikerthai : I think even Airbus is seeing that the technology is good. BBC News: How Airbus A350 Wings Are Made (by speedbird9 Mar 8 2011 in Civil Aviation) The
222 BMI727 : Not really. That means that Boeing thinks it is possible, not necessarily economical. The Sonic Cruiser got to a more developed stage than these 2-2-
223 Post contains images incitatus : And just because Boeing says they are going to do it, it does not mean it makes sense. The idea that a.net is all made of a bunch of clueless "arm ch
224 bikerthai : Just frosting on the cake. The 747-8F have no equivalent (yet). Like "NEW COKE" or the "Chevy Aztec" or "Toyota stuck accelerator pedal". But the wro
225 parapente : Fair comments. "Not really. That means that Boeing thinks it is possible, not necessarily economical. The Sonic Cruiser got to a more developed stage
226 flylku : I'm 6'3". My dad was 5'11". His dad was 5'9". That is a trend that many societies share. What is irresponsible about that?
227 JoeCanuck : Actually, Boeing hasn't said what they plan to do...just some of the options they are considering.
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...
Boeing 737 Replacement As Early As 2012? posted Fri Dec 30 2005 12:41:53 by Sq212
No Boeing 737 Replacement posted Mon Jun 13 2005 10:16:55 by JDD1
Boeing Not Planning A New 737 Replacement posted Tue Feb 6 2007 22:27:12 by T773ER
Boeing Shelves 737 Replacement posted Thu Jan 1 2009 19:40:03 by Bill142
Boeing Further Obscures Timing Of 737 Replacement posted Thu May 22 2008 05:24:04 by YULspotter
Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010 posted Thu Dec 6 2007 13:57:53 by Scbriml
Boeing Expects To Deliver 737 Replacement By 2015 posted Tue Jun 26 2007 20:10:33 by Parapente
Why WN Does Not Have TV Screen On Boeing 737-700? posted Tue Jun 26 2007 00:34:40 by Boeing743
Boeing And Lockheed Martin JV On 737 Replacement? posted Thu Oct 26 2006 22:56:32 by Lumberton
Boeing Firms Up 737 Replacement Studies. posted Thu Mar 2 2006 14:03:31 by WINGS
Boeing Further Obscures Timing Of 737 Replacement posted Thu May 22 2008 05:24:04 by YULspotter
Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010 posted Thu Dec 6 2007 13:57:53 by Scbriml
Boeing Expects To Deliver 737 Replacement By 2015 posted Tue Jun 26 2007 20:10:33 by Parapente
Why WN Does Not Have TV Screen On Boeing 737-700? posted Tue Jun 26 2007 00:34:40 by Boeing743
Boeing And Lockheed Martin JV On 737 Replacement? posted Thu Oct 26 2006 22:56:32 by Lumberton
Boeing Firms Up 737 Replacement Studies. posted Thu Mar 2 2006 14:03:31 by WINGS