sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14159 times:
With the 777 most likely being updated its the 737 that will get replaced first, so my guess is that the NSA will be the 797. One has to wonder how long the 737 will live on, there will come a day when there is a lot efficiency to gain by replacing it despite the huge costs of new programs.
I guess the MAX is the last iteration of the fantastic 737 family.
Maybe an EIS 10-12 years after the EIS of the MAX? Seems like MAX will be a 2 model family, the 7 model having zero orders and very low interest in the market. The 797 will grow to capture the niche above the 739 and below the 787-8, that itself probably will be a slow seller going forward.
BlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1710 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 14011 times:
Successor to the 737. 777 will live on for now in form of 777-8, -8ER, -8F and -9, the life of 787 has just begun, 747 is on its death bed (about time) and 737MAX is the last of the line. Sure it is selling, but Boeing will need to replace it sooner than later.
waly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 74 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 13478 times:
It will most probably be the next short/medium haul aircraft to replace the 737-Max. The concept that was once floated around by Boeing of a twin aisle 737 sized (800 and above) aircraft certainly looked interesting.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 6, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 13191 times:
Quoting Triple7X (Reply 6):
There are rumors of a ''Blended Wing Design' for the B797...although I don't know how true is the rumor
I really doubt it. This month's Boeing Frontiers has a nice article on their BWB prototype. Boeing Commercial passed the BWB project off from Commercial to Phantom Works many years ago...they now think the first application will be military, which makes a lot of sense.
lhcvg From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1369 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 13153 times:
Am I right to think that the 797 will be true 757 replacement, given that the MAX and the NEO are still under 200 seats and marginal for TATL? My thinking is: centered in 200-seat range with some growth potential to 220ish and some shrinkage to a 150+ seater (if they even bother at that point, with the possibility of a "CS350" or "CS400" maybe growing to fill those shoes), and I presume the range would be pushed enough to give it legitimate TATL capability to cover current 75E jobs, if not a bit more.
YTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1444 posts, RR: 23 Reply 9, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 12841 times:
I would say the 797 will be the true 737/757 replacement.
Baseline will be 200 seats (single seat capacity). And the shrink will be 30 seat less (170 1-class). The stretch will be 30 seats more (230 1-class). Single aisle. Wider aisle. Wider seats. TATL range with a full payload. Substantially lower operating costs than either aircraft.
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4976 posts, RR: 14 Reply 10, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12637 times:
I think the 797 will probably be the last quad ULH in our history. And I'm saying that as a 21 year old. I see it as a bridge between the 77W and the 744/748. I see it as a structural engineering feat beyond what we know so far, as well as containing the most fuel-efficient engines in the world, burning biofuels at a rate that makes the GEnx look like the PWs on an MD88. Extremely contoured fuselage, built for speed and efficiency, and with the lowest drag ratio of any aircraft in the air today.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 12440 times:
Yeah the 797 should be 170/200/230 a perfect portfolio in these times with so much competition below 150 seats, none above 220. The 787-8 will not be the best selling 787 model, here the NSA will see to it as well.
The question is how do you make a 170 seat short haul plane good at 230 seats TATL?
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11711 posts, RR: 52 Reply 14, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 12348 times:
I'm not sure there will be a B-797. Boeing may just jump to the next family, the B-800 series, beginning with the B-808. That will be a good start towards replacing the entire B-700 series of the most successfull airline family in history.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 12328 times:
Well if the NSA would grow why not do a proper TATL shuttle? Having a lot less OEW compared to the 787-8 with 230 seats on long and thin. If range was not important we would not see the MAX/NEO at 3600nm.
I think the OEMs see place for NBs on some routes served with old WB gear currently. Comfort for passengers? Well I think the economics will rule. Either go with few packed A380s or more frequency on NBs. NBs have one fat advantage, OEW/Seat, very little dead space per seat.
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 711 posts, RR: 11 Reply 16, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 12250 times:
Quoting YTZ (Reply 9): I would say the 797 will be the true 737/757 replacement.
Baseline will be 200 seats (single seat capacity). And the shrink will be 30 seat less (170 1-class). The stretch will be 30 seats more (230 1-class). Single aisle. Wider aisle. Wider seats. TATL range with a full payload. Substantially lower operating costs than either aircraft.
Nothing too radical like BWB.
I think that the next small aircraft won't happen until one of two things occur.
1. There is a new form factor (ie not tube and wings) that radically increases efficiency. Otherwise it is just not worth it as you can keep slapping new engines on the 737 and A320 with comparatively minor changes and low upfront cost.
2. There is a manufacturing revolution where Boeing or Airbus can drastically reduce the man hours put into assembling each airframe. This would necessitate in my view the ability to do a single piece CFRP barrel where the only joins are the tail assembly and the cockpit section, or possibly cooking in one piece everything but the tail assembly.
Number 1 allows you to charge more money for a more efficient aircraft. Number 2 lets you charge about the same amount of money for a slightly more efficient aircraft (benefits of CFRP reduce as you get smaller). Short of those two things happening I just don't see anyone taking on the risk in this sector.
I think the next Boeing is going to be a full on 777 replacement rather than them doing the 777x. It will be a twin, look similar to the 777 but possibly be a bit wider and be a CFRP aircraft from the start.
lhcvg From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1369 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 12239 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 11): The question is how do you make a 170 seat short haul plane good at 230 seats TATL?
I think that's just it: it will be centered around the 200-seat range, with appropriate accomodations for the 230-odd seat stretch, which I assume would be the size for a possible ~200 seat TATL plane. Certainly there will be the ability to shrink to ~170, but in order to get the top-end performance (and absolutely if you want to take 200+ TATL in the larger variant rather than just ~175) you'll need to optimize for that at the expense of the little guy. Of course they could always do a 787-10 or A35J and make some tweaks to the stretch TATL variant, but that may not be feasible in this size range. In short, I think any 170-seat 797 variant will probably get the short end of the optimization.
HoMsaR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 804 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 12202 times:
I think it will be well into the 2020s before we have any hint of what the "797" (or whatever the next new commercial aircraft Boeing develops is called) will look like.
That gives us at least 12-15 more years of "what will replace the 757?" threads.
Yeah If the 200 seater has TATL range that would actually replace the 752 right off the bat, with the larger model having the range of NEO/MAX A321/739, 230 seats to Hawaii or east coast to west coast.
The 170 seater could have a lower MTOW instead to lower fees?
lhcvg From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1369 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 12139 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 19):
Yeah If the 200 seater has TATL range that would actually replace the 752 right off the bat, with the larger model having the range of NEO/MAX A321/739, 230 seats to Hawaii or east coast to west coast.
The 170 seater could have a lower MTOW instead to lower fees?
Well I think they have three options here:
1) Build it with the base model (200-seat domestic config, ~175ish w/ J) having TATL range, and the stretch (~230 domestic/~200 w/ J config) being like the NEO or MAX where it can just barely do it. The 170-seat shrink still gets short shrift, but won't be too far off given it's lower fees and better field performance where needed.
2) Build so both models can do TATL, where the 230/200 stretch has some optimizations to give it true TATL range but at the expense of some commonality with the 200/175 base model. Obviously this is more complex and expensive, but it just depends on where the market goes for it, and how extensive the mods would have to be to get there. I think this is worse for the 170-seat version because the base will have to share some accomodations made for the stretch that will only harm the economics of the shrink even more.
3) Just can the idea of a 170-seater altogether. Leave everything below 200 domestic/175 int'l to BBD and Emb and just optimize purely for the 200-250(HD) market below the 787.
Not saying which is necessarily the better course for Boeing, but they each have some different costs and benefits to them.
justinlee From China, joined Aug 2012, 306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 12139 times:
Quoting lhcvg (Reply 7): Am I right to think that the 797 will be true 757 replacement, given that the MAX and the NEO are still under 200 seats and marginal for TATL? My thinking is: centered in 200-seat range with some growth potential to 220ish and some shrinkage to a 150+ seater (if they even bother at that point, with the possibility of a "CS350" or "CS400" maybe growing to fill those shoes), and I presume the range would be pushed enough to give it legitimate TATL capability to cover current 75E jobs, if not a bit more.
Totally agree, there is actually no exact 757 replacement in the market. I guess 797 would serve some really thin routes, which means a narrow body long-haul plane. The range should be around 9,000 km in order to serve trans-atlantic and trans-eurasia routes.
Quoting sweair (Reply 15): Well if the NSA would grow why not do a proper TATL shuttle? Having a lot less OEW compared to the 787-8 with 230 seats on long and thin. If range was not important we would not see the MAX/NEO at 3600nm.
787-8 is still too big to serve really long and thin routes. Most companies will use it as a 767 replacement in the current economy.
Quoting sweair (Reply 15): NBs have one fat advantage, OEW/Seat, very little dead space per seat.
Narrow body has another big advantage: air resistance.
Y'know? I think you're right. I think the 797 will be a replacement for the 757 with about a 3000 Mi range and hopefully with an 8" wider cabin. The 737 is a little cramped for ETOPS flying over 5 hrs. and a replacement for the 757 would be an excellent airplane for West coast- Hawaii or East coast- Western Europe. a very suitable mid range airplane with a little
wider fuselage for a nicer seat and shoulder room. JMO of course.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 12001 times:
You all are very fixated on the TATL 757 mission... you are forgetting that it represents about 150-200 of the about 10,000 narrowbodies in service worldwide.
I also expect the next all-new Boeing plane to be a narrowbody, although there is an outside chance it could be a 777/747 replacement (likely with an ovoid cross-section just a bit wider, but significantly less tall, than a current 747).
But that narrowbody will be optimized to serve the bulk of the missions. If it weren't, Airbus would just come in with something lighter and more efficient. As we are already hearing of the neo and MAX, Boeing will develop the 3500 nm variant first and then figure out what has to be done to get a variant to 4000+ nm for those few operators needing longer range.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
25 lhcvg: Yup that's exactly what I'm thinking - a 757 with wider cabin (~13 ft) and the accompanying better range and efficiency from 30 years of new developm
26 brilondon: That is my first thought. But I got to thinking, and I know that is a dangerous place to be, but I wonder if we could see a 100-120 seat short haul a
27 BigJKU: This was kind of my thought. The preference for 737/A320 types seemed pretty clear back then. The handful of aircraft like this doing long range work
28 Bill142: the 797 will be a hypersonic aircraft powered by dark matter.
29 YTZ: Only if Boeing can offer something substantially better than its competition which will yield good sales. Otherwise, roughly splitting the pie makes
30 zippyjet: That will be Boeing's foray into their new 800 or 7000 family.
31 LHCVG: I don't know about the others, but for me at least it's a size issue more than anything - the 737 and 320 both max out around 200 seats, and those ve
32 seabosdca: The problem is that all of these markets together don't add up to nearly enough frames to justify a whole new type.
33 tdscanuck: I just had a terrible revelation...unless Boeing calls their next new type the 797, the a.net thread debacle will be epic. There is no possible name
34 LHCVG: No, but they'd surely support at least a variant of it. The 797 that I am proposing would go 170-230ish seats and 3000ish to 5000-5500 mile range. Wi
35 bohica: Boeing will go back to it's roots of jet design for the 797. It will be a 200 seat plane based on a plane they built a long time ago, the 367-80. This
36 seabosdca: A shrink by its very nature is not well optimized. Right now the 738/320 space (particularly at the 738 size) is the exact heart of the market. That
37 xlc: What are China, India, and Brazil going to need? That's where the growth is going to happen. Especially if Brazil builds all 800 of those proposed air
38 PassedV1: Agreed, however the US market is still the largest. By the time this airplane comes online....say 2025ish, all of the early 800/900's are gonig to ne
39 davs5032: Unless Boeing changes their design strategy, I don't see it widening this much. On basically their entire product line, they've kept the fuselage sma
40 flightsimer: I had thought about this late last year and came up with the following. I even had projected numbers for dimensions of the proposed family, but I can'
41 sweair: As the 739-ER has replaced the 737-700 sort of I would say size will grow. The base model will be a bit larger than the 737-800, 170 seats 2 class..co
43 tdscanuck: Why would airlines pay for the extra weight and drag for that non-revenue space? What's in it for the customer? That's a more than 100% cabin stretch
44 LHCVG: A 13' cabin is just a few inches more than a current 320 cabin...hardly a big difference. That's why I said ~13' -- wider yes, but very doable in a m
45 panais: Many seem to ignore the family aspect of selling aircraft. Airbus is very focused on demonstrating business benefits of using a family of products. So
46 LHCVG: It's not about covering a niche market, which obviously couldn't prop up the type by itself. It's simply about making fundamental design choices to a
47 clydenairways: I think it will be a 200 seater 737 replacement with various models covering the 170-230 seat range. I think it will be optimised for efficiency in th
48 brilondon: Which customer are you talking about? Airlines who purchase the aircraft or passengers who fly in the aircraft. The airlines who purchase the aircraf
49 Viscount724: But for what purpose? It's been proven time and time again that passengers aren't willing to pay for wider seats or wider aisles. How do they get a r
50 tdscanuck: This is absolutely true. The problem with aircraft is that the impact of those design tweaks to support the bigger model directly and materially impa
51 LHCVG: Same logic as Boeing uses for the 787 - they advertise improved customer experience features all the time for it. A narrowbody can't fit any more acr
53 LHCVG: Wasn't that Boeing's pitch for the twin-aisle narrowbody? I don't remember the figures given, but they seemed to think they could really cut down on
54 morrisond: They could make the next NB Eliptical - which with the same cross Section as an A320 would give them 2x2x2 very comfortably or possibly 2x3x2 in a ver
55 B777LRF: Except for the facts that a) the A321 is good for 220 seats (with plans for a 235 seat neo) and b) the A320neo will comfortably operate TATL, and a 1
56 flightsimer: For the first part, it would allow a quicker and easier boarding experience. Someone trying to put their bag into the overhead will be able to do so
57 LHCVG: Sorry for nitpicking here, but the 737-100 and -200 are vastly different planes altogether from an NG let alone a MAX. The entire 737 lineup was re-c
58 tdscanuck: That's a good point; it would be interesting to see where the breakeven is for the improved boarding time increasing utilization enough to pay for th
59 LHCVG: What about those special bins used on a 320? Obviously it wouldn't necessarily use identical ones, but aren't those an "odd LD size"?
60 sweair: I know what would speed up boarding times, only allow a small carry on bag. Just yesterday we got 15 minutes delayed because of all cheap people filli
61 bond007: I cannot believe that an aisle twice as wide, could be cost justified by faster boarding times. The cheapest and easiest way to enable fast boarding,
62 EPA001: That is indeed something where great improvements could be reached. But most passengers are either clumsy, or egoistic, or both. They are blocking th
63 LHCVG: In fairness though, wouldn't boarding and de-planing a full 753 still take a while even with light carryon loads? I know I've seen a few quips from G
64 bond007: Agreed, it can only help .... but that reason alone could never justify an extra aisle (or double-wide aisle). On the smaller aircraft, like B737, it
65 tdscanuck: But if you use the same ones you don't get and gain from the extra width because you're stuck with A320 sized containers, and if you use different on
66 Max Q: Does anyone even use those A320 containers ?
67 The777Man: Hi ! Yes, AC, AF and LH to name a few. MX used to use them as well. The777Man
68 sweair: B had an idea about a twin isle fat but short NB patent the other year. If you could have a twin isle 2-3-2 short haul cabin this could be turned into
70 na: The 797? 1. The 737 successor (I dont think the max will do it for long) 2. a joint 747/777 successor (if Boeing drops the 777X) 3. a 747 successor, a
71 Superfly: I'd like to see a 4-engine T-tail design like the IL-62 / VC10 but a widebody and longer instead. Use huge engines like on the 777 and 747-8 but make
72 Max Q: Er, ok, that was sort of my question !!!!
73 na: Yup, because you were right with your suggestions, only that I see the second possibility a bit different. I do not think that Boeing would build a t
74 817Dreamliiner: For me, I think it will be a new narrow body. Because think about it, the 737 design has run its course. Also, unless proven wrong by Boeing, the MAX
75 liftsifter: I actually really think that the 797 will never come to fruition. The 737 has another 10-20 years on it. 77X will be at least 10 yaers out for EIS. 74
76 Superfly: The Boeing 808 with Hawaiian Airlines as it's launch customer.
77 CXB77L: I agree with those who think it'll be the 737 replacement. I think the MAX, as competitive an aircraft as it is, would only be an interim solution unt
78 sweair: IF the 797/NSA could cover up to 230 seats and 1000nm more range than MAX I think the 787-8 will sell less in the future. It seems many orders for the
79 EPA001: The B767 is already at EOL. The A330 is still selling like hot cakes. That will cool down within 10 years, but the B767 is not selling anymore alread
80 sweair: A 230 seat NB is till a NB, but in a segment that the new competition is not bothered to touch, they will however give it all below 150 seats. So the
81 PHX787: That would have to have some serious incentives to get going on such a route, because I highly doubt that would be profitable.
82 Superfly: Even if it's made of plastic like the 787?
83 tdscanuck: Fully loaded? That would imply a spec range of ~12,000nm...who on earth would want that? You'd pay an absolutely incredible weight penalty on even "n
84 PHX787: The 787 would never be able to turn a profit on a LON-SYD route even if it could make it
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3290 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1710 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 74 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Dec 2012, 26 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4976 posts, 
From Morocco, joined Sep 2003, 280 posts, 
From China, joined Aug 2012, 306 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
