Let's make this analytically clear. I will attempt to summarize your thesis; tell me whether I'm right.
Thesis: Planes with greater range cannot be more efficient than planes with less range.
If that is not a correct statement of your thesis, please explain in a clear manner that does not veer into questions.
It is a bit a far fetched interpretation of what I wrote, but under the assumption that the level of technology would be comparable, the thesis is correct IMO.
My thesis would include the competitiveness in relation to other aircraft: "Mid- and long-range planes are not competitive against optimized aircraft from the range class below."
The whole idea of the MOM relies on this thesis to be true. If it is not true, the 787 would cover the MOM market sufficiently well.
We discussed whether the 797 could be competitive over short ranges (e.g. 1000nm).
Then you said:
When you require a A321 or 737 to fly 3000+mm it will be taking off at or close to maximum takeoff weight. This means the initial cruise altitude is very low due to the small and overloaded wings. The fully loaded A321LR can not even reach 30,000 feet for the first few hours of its flight. This affects the entire average fuel burn for the trip.
The 797 will most definitely take off and go straight up to 35,000+ft on a 3000nm flight. The higher cruise altitude will improve fuel burn significantly. This payload range point is where the 797 will become the most efficient aircraft. It will extend up until the 787-8 takes over which would be potentially up around 4500nm.
I replied regarding this exact quote:
We were talking about 1000nm not 3000nm. You are moving the goalpost by the factor of three. 3000nm of course is within the RCR (range of competitive ranges) of the 797.
You then replied:
I was covering all ranges from 0nm up to 5000nm when comparing the A321 to the 797.
So I ask, where is 0nm to 5000nm covered in the quoted text?
(try to stick to discussed topic and not change the parameter on the fly all the time. Since 10 posts or so I never discussed about anything else than the wrongfully claimed short range competitiveness of the 797).
On a 1000nm flight the fuel burn per passenger will be on par. The better lift to drag ratio of the larger wing will allow slightly less thrust so it would cancel out any extra bulk of the 797. So at this range both are equal or competitive. This passes the "widebody with narrowbody economics" phrase in my opinion.
Above you said that the 797 would have the best CASM down to 2500nm. How can the 797 have on par fuel burn at 1000nm, but CASM would be second best below 2500nm, if large planes have much more benefits beside the fuel burn? To me it seems you just pull all your numbers as they suit your foregone conclusion.
If the 797 can be designed in a way that fuel burn is on par at 1000nm Boeing would better have designed the 787 that way to cover the 4000nm market too.
The 797 will have a huge advantage at 3500nm but at what range did that advantage start to appear?
That's a matter of believe but not a matter of fact.
A 1% fuel burn delta is the difference between the A320 and 737 families and the A330NEO and 787 families. So it can make a big difference on market share.
Sorry for being precise, but we were not talking about a fuel burn delta, but about a airport fee delta. As airport fees account for something like 6% in the total cost breakdown, a 1% delta in airport fees will make up a whopping difference of 0.06% of the total cost
. Case closed.
And, even if the fuel burn delta between the mentioned aircraft families would really be 1%, the different market share would be result of other factors...