JustSomeDood wrote:seahawk wrote:Imho the big problem is that there seem to be 2 camps of interested airline when it comes to range. One looks at something with around 3000nm range, the other at something at 5000nm+ as a 763ER replacement.
The problem is both seem to prefer a similar seat number, yet with very different cabin space requirements. The problem is that the longer ranged variant is also the one needing more cabin space, so that there is easy trade-off possible.
I won't be so sure of that, the Asian/Indian carriers that want 3000nm people-haulers are also the sort of carriers where adding frequency isn't really an option. If B is thinking of committing to a clean-sheet wide body design anyways. It might be pertinent for them to design and market the stretch as a replacement of 2 narrowbodies (i.e 320-340 seats in low-J narrowbody configuration), and lop off enough frames to satisfy EU/US range requirements to avoid cannibalizing on 787 sales.
Which Asian / Indian carriers are we talking about? The ones who can buy more than 100 airplanes have already loaded up on narrowbodies.
For the record, I think range on a 797 should top out at 5000 nm. And perhaps be a bit less. Because when you get above 5000 nm, you have to carry enough fuel - and have enough takeoff power - that the difference between a 5000+ nm plane and a shrunken 789 (they should really shrink the 789 and end the 788 they make now) is not enough to warrant the development expense. Except perhaps taking the 3rd spar out of the wing. Which is still a 787 of some sort