StTim
Posts: 2818
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:09 pm

parapente wrote:
Re Seahawk -- Which I guess is why there has never been a 'one size fits all' aircraft in this 'middle market' sector.But...The moment you start breaking it up the business case drops away as Boeing are finding.Soooo they will come up with the best compromise.Since there is nothing in their MOM sector (as they have defined it) airlines will have compromise and take a 'nearly right' a/c.


And many will continue with their current compromises.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2672
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:21 pm

seahawk wrote:
Rumour mill says it is even more complex. there seem to be 4 definitions voiced by the airlines.

- US continental people mover (up to 300 seats (two class), no interest in cargo, >4000nm range, optimisation for routes around 2500nm)
- Medium haul widebody 4000nm range, cargo is important, not more than 300 seat (single class)
- 767ER replacement ~6000nm range, cargo capacity and around 250 seats two class
- small widebody around 270 seats single class, around 5000nm range, cargo capacity


Question is which will sell more. To me the first is a given, because anyone flying an A321 now will be a potential customer. Do 2,3 or 4 then one looses the lower seat costs performance because of a heavier frame. Which very simliar to a A330 or 787, which are available now.

It will have cargo capability just not as much as some may want.
 
parapente
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:23 pm

St Tim.I agree but aircraft get old (a lot already are) so then - in a sense they will be forced to take it.

Samrnpage.Do you think a 170 seater (assuming you mean one class) is really necessary -10 years in the future.That sector is nearly dead already.
But you are right.This is of course what Boeing were going to do all along.(3 aircraft family).But Airbus forced their hand re the NEO.So they had to 'go again' with the venerable 737.Thats why it all looks a little messy.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2672
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:24 pm

Samrnpage wrote:
Honestly, the smart thing to do would make the MOM or next clean sheet design to be the 737 replacement with a model list like the A320 series but bigger. Example:

797-700 170 seats
797-800 200 seats
797-900 230 seats
797-1000 250 seats

All with decent range of 3000-5000

So covers 737 and MOM and has fleet commonality with each other.


The airlines are upgauging, the A320 and 737-800 used to be the middle, now its the A321s and 737-10s. So start at 250 pax or so as rumored and Boeing will snag a bit of domestic flying orders on that basis alone.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2672
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:26 pm

StTim wrote:
parapente wrote:
Re Seahawk -- Which I guess is why there has never been a 'one size fits all' aircraft in this 'middle market' sector.But...The moment you start breaking it up the business case drops away as Boeing are finding.Soooo they will come up with the best compromise.Since there is nothing in their MOM sector (as they have defined it) airlines will have compromise and take a 'nearly right' a/c.


And many will continue with their current compromises.


So true, thats why if I am Boieng I am not concerned about the more cargo requests. There are two products on the market that can handle their "comprimises".
 
parapente
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:58 pm

Fair point re cargo.Sounds right (to me anyway).So now just wait!I hope it's an interesting aircraft.I don't expect any moon shots as it will (have to) be built down to a price.
BTW will be hard for Airbus to (fully) respond without creating a stillborn child (338).Perhaps they will start with a quick small stretch on the A321NEO to 250 pax just to cover that regional area off and give the 737-10 a really hard time!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 17736
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:15 pm

seahawk wrote:
Rumour mill says it is even more complex. there seem to be 4 definitions voiced by the airlines.
- US continental people mover (up to 300 seats (two class), no interest in cargo, >4000nm range, optimisation for routes around 2500nm)
- Medium haul widebody 4000nm range, cargo is important, not more than 300 seat (single class)
- 767ER replacement ~6000nm range, cargo capacity and around 250 seats two class
- small widebody around 270 seats single class, around 5000nm range, cargo capacity

First doesn't make sense to me, 300 seats two class with shorter range is not the target.
Third is just off the table.
2nd and 4th map pretty close to what we know Boeing is currently pitching:

Boeing has provisionally defined two main NMA versions: a 225-seat model with a 5,000 nm range and a larger, 275-seat version with a range of roughly 4,500 nm.

Ref: http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... ecided-nma

The cargo thing is a bit of a wildcard, but IMHO they will err on the side of efficiency rather than capacity.

Whilst everyone keeps comparing to A330 et al, the NMA wide body frame will have a lot more cargo capacity than the current narrow bodies.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
StTim
Posts: 2818
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:26 pm

Revelation wrote:

The cargo thing is a bit of a wildcard, but IMHO they will err on the side of efficiency rather than capacity.

Whilst everyone keeps comparing to A330 et al, the NMA wide body frame will have a lot more cargo capacity than the current narrow bodies.


I am not sure I agree unless they go for either just bulk loading - or they define a new container to fit the "allegedly" oval cross section. If no new container they will have more seats per metre of length and the same cargo space. So less for no customer bags.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 17736
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:30 pm

StTim wrote:
Revelation wrote:

The cargo thing is a bit of a wildcard, but IMHO they will err on the side of efficiency rather than capacity.

Whilst everyone keeps comparing to A330 et al, the NMA wide body frame will have a lot more cargo capacity than the current narrow bodies.


I am not sure I agree unless they go for either just bulk loading - or they define a new container to fit the "allegedly" oval cross section. If no new container they will have more seats per metre of length and the same cargo space. So less for no customer bags.

Not sure I follow.

More seats per unit length but also 2nd aisle so it all balances out.

Unique containers won't be the issue people here make it to be.

767 did just fine with its own container type.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
StTim
Posts: 2818
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:36 pm

Revelation wrote:
StTim wrote:
Revelation wrote:

The cargo thing is a bit of a wildcard, but IMHO they will err on the side of efficiency rather than capacity.

Whilst everyone keeps comparing to A330 et al, the NMA wide body frame will have a lot more cargo capacity than the current narrow bodies.


I am not sure I agree unless they go for either just bulk loading - or they define a new container to fit the "allegedly" oval cross section. If no new container they will have more seats per metre of length and the same cargo space. So less for no customer bags.

Not sure I follow.

More seats per unit length but also 2nd aisle so it all balances out.

Unique containers won't be the issue people here make it to be.

767 did just fine with its own container type.


All the indicators are that the oval section will mean less underfloor space than the 767 had - despite the same seating layout.

Remember there is a view expressed above that Asian airlines are not happy with the lack of cargo space. To go back to a frame that gives the space will affect the aerodynamic efficiency they are looking for. There is no free lunch here - despite what some want.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6393
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:45 pm

The problem is that we have no idea what cabin configuration those seat numbers mean. 225 seats single class is 3 rows less than a 767-2 at 32" pitch, which today would probably be reduced to 30". So about 31-32 rows, which would be 737-8 length. So maybe 42m overall due to the bigger diameter. There is imho no way to achieve an acceptable fineness ratio for such a plane.
Even if they can squeeze the fuselage average diameter to 4,60m it is still an FR of around 9, which simply is bad. This short fuselage means that your tail also needs to be bigger and this adds an additional penalty. Imho there is no realistic way to even come close to an A321 or 737-1000 with such a design.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6393
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:31 pm

In addition. The 275 seat configuration for single class, also seems not too attractive. Airbus could easily stretch the A321 by 2-3m so that they can offer 250 seats with reasonable pitch. The 275 twin aisle would then offer just about 18 more effective seats, considering that it would need one more FA and the cost of the FA usually amounts to the revenue of about 7 extra seats. That is another business case I can not see working.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 397
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:36 pm

Revelation wrote:
The cargo thing is a bit of a wildcard, but IMHO they will err on the side of efficiency rather than capacity.

The thing is: They need to make it either more efficient than the A321 or significantly more capable, i. e. more range and cargo. If they go for the former but end up missing the target, the 797 has no market. If they go for the latter, they'll end up eating into 787 sales while the A321 is still unrivaled (although the 737-10 will fare better than the -9).
 
brindabella
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:59 pm

william wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I've said this many times..

LD3 containers will NOT fit in a tight 8 abreast circular fuselage.

The fuselage if circular will need to be a roomy 8 abreast or a very tight 9ab abreast to fit LD3 containers. The A330 cross section is the absolute smallest you can go to fit LD3 containers. An A330 sized cross section would see 9 abreast used by many carriers on short routes. It would also be within 3-4% of the 787 cross section.

If LD3's are needed Boeing will use the 787 cross section which would make more sense. They would then make an optimised, lightweight, short ranged 787 version. Potentially even a second shrink for a medium ranged version.

Narrower LD2 containers are the only option to fit a tight 8 abreast circular cross section. So this would be the most likely option for a clean sheet design.

In terms of the NMA here are my estimates:
60% - It will be a lightweight optimised 787-3
20% - clean sheet circular tight 8ab LD2 containers
10% - clean sheet oval tight 8ab LD3-45 containers
5% - 767MAX 8ab for short haul 7ab medium haul
5% - clean sheet 7ab or 6ab design.


Or just buy a 787 if you need move LD3s. Mission creep will ruin the 797 mission of being an efficient people hauler.


:checkmark:

That mission with lotsa pax & heapsa cargo has 787-10 written all over it.

Currently looks like the US3 are fighting it out for "launch" position(s).
Hard to ignore!

:talktothehand:

cheers
Billy
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2636
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:12 pm

seahawk wrote:
The problem is that we have no idea what cabin configuration those seat numbers mean. 225 seats single class is 3 rows less than a 767-2 at 32" pitch, which today would probably be reduced to 30". So about 31-32 rows, which would be 737-8 length. So maybe 42m overall due to the bigger diameter. There is imho no way to achieve an acceptable fineness ratio for such a plane.
Even if they can squeeze the fuselage average diameter to 4,60m it is still an FR of around 9, which simply is bad. This short fuselage means that your tail also needs to be bigger and this adds an additional penalty. Imho there is no realistic way to even come close to an A321 or 737-1000 with such a design.


Boeing usually quotes two class configurations. The 767-200 is 216 seats and 767-300 is 261. That tells us the plane they are proposing is almost identical in size to the 767-200/300 but with less range.

I would suggest not getting distracted when people start quoting single class seat counts that make the A321 sound similar in size, when in reality there is a gap.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6393
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:39 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The problem is that we have no idea what cabin configuration those seat numbers mean. 225 seats single class is 3 rows less than a 767-2 at 32" pitch, which today would probably be reduced to 30". So about 31-32 rows, which would be 737-8 length. So maybe 42m overall due to the bigger diameter. There is imho no way to achieve an acceptable fineness ratio for such a plane.
Even if they can squeeze the fuselage average diameter to 4,60m it is still an FR of around 9, which simply is bad. This short fuselage means that your tail also needs to be bigger and this adds an additional penalty. Imho there is no realistic way to even come close to an A321 or 737-1000 with such a design.


Boeing usually quotes two class configurations. The 767-200 is 216 seats and 767-300 is 261. That tells us the plane they are proposing is almost identical in size to the 767-200/300 but with less range.

I would suggest not getting distracted when people start quoting single class seat counts that make the A321 sound similar in size, when in reality there is a gap.


That is my understanding as well. It makes sense, the only problem I see is that the plane would be in the same position as the 767 and would be equally vulnerable to an A330 replacement arriving 5-7 years later. The newer engines would allow Airbus to go 8 abreast while achieving a similar absolute fuel burn or offering more range while keeping the fuel burn per seat kilometre similar.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2636
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:46 pm

seahawk wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The problem is that we have no idea what cabin configuration those seat numbers mean. 225 seats single class is 3 rows less than a 767-2 at 32" pitch, which today would probably be reduced to 30". So about 31-32 rows, which would be 737-8 length. So maybe 42m overall due to the bigger diameter. There is imho no way to achieve an acceptable fineness ratio for such a plane.
Even if they can squeeze the fuselage average diameter to 4,60m it is still an FR of around 9, which simply is bad. This short fuselage means that your tail also needs to be bigger and this adds an additional penalty. Imho there is no realistic way to even come close to an A321 or 737-1000 with such a design.


Boeing usually quotes two class configurations. The 767-200 is 216 seats and 767-300 is 261. That tells us the plane they are proposing is almost identical in size to the 767-200/300 but with less range.

I would suggest not getting distracted when people start quoting single class seat counts that make the A321 sound similar in size, when in reality there is a gap.


That is my understanding as well. It makes sense, the only problem I see is that the plane would be in the same position as the 767 and would be equally vulnerable to an A330 replacement arriving 5-7 years later. The newer engines would allow Airbus to go 8 abreast while achieving a similar absolute fuel burn or offering more range while keeping the fuel burn per seat kilometre similar.


Anything Boeing does will result in some action by Airbus. Obviously Boeing is talking to many airlines to design a product that will have a big enough market to justify the investment. One plane can’t satisfy everyone, but that is ok. Boeing still has the 787 after all and Airbus has the A320neo, A330neo family as well.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 17736
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:56 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Boeing usually quotes two class configurations. The 767-200 is 216 seats and 767-300 is 261. That tells us the plane they are proposing is almost identical in size to the 767-200/300 but with less range.

I would suggest not getting distracted when people start quoting single class seat counts that make the A321 sound similar in size, when in reality there is a gap.

Especially when they post high single class seat counts (with accompanying baggage) and maximum range in the same sentence.

Leeham spelled out the trade-offs:

With our trip through the realities of the Airbus A321neo, we have learned the different trades that have to be considered for an airline that buys a A321LR for Trans-Atlantic missions. A big influence will be the cabin and optional equipments choices. Airbus advertises the A321LR at launch as 16 business class (36 inch pitch) and 190 economy (30 inch pitch) for a total of 206 seats. Our model shows that the empty weight of the A321LR has to stay below 52t for this to work, so Airbus assumes a typical “OEM show room” configuration with very basic assumptions for seat weights, IFE, galley equipment, aircraft options, quite different from the typical Boeing 757-200W configurations we compared with from Delta Air Lines and United Airlines in October.

We can also see that Airbus has assumed non LD3-45 loaded passenger bags. The bags simply does not fit for 206 passengers in a containerized concept with normal assumptions for bags per passenger and bags per container. It requires nine containers free and we would only have seven after the three fuel tanks have been installed. With bulk-loaded bags, including using the bulk cargo area, the bags for 206 passengers will fit with a bit of room to spare.

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2015/01/15/airbu ... ats-there/

So you can get 206 passengers in two classes (note: not the 240 one-class count) to max range (4000nm still air, 3500nm realistic) if you also use an unrealistic showroom configuration and do not use containers.

We shall see exactly what Boeing presents, but if you presume what we know from Boeing (two main NMA versions: a 225-seat model with a 5,000 nm range and a larger, 275-seat version with a range of roughly 4,500 nm) is using similar assumptions (two classes, showroom configuration, bulk loading) there is a meaningful gap in terms of range and passenger count (and presumably, efficiency too).
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
StTim
Posts: 2818
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:07 pm

Revelation wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Boeing usually quotes two class configurations. The 767-200 is 216 seats and 767-300 is 261. That tells us the plane they are proposing is almost identical in size to the 767-200/300 but with less range.

I would suggest not getting distracted when people start quoting single class seat counts that make the A321 sound similar in size, when in reality there is a gap.

Especially when they post high single class seat counts (with accompanying baggage) and maximum range in the same sentence.

Leeham spelled out the trade-offs:

With our trip through the realities of the Airbus A321neo, we have learned the different trades that have to be considered for an airline that buys a A321LR for Trans-Atlantic missions. A big influence will be the cabin and optional equipments choices. Airbus advertises the A321LR at launch as 16 business class (36 inch pitch) and 190 economy (30 inch pitch) for a total of 206 seats. Our model shows that the empty weight of the A321LR has to stay below 52t for this to work, so Airbus assumes a typical “OEM show room” configuration with very basic assumptions for seat weights, IFE, galley equipment, aircraft options, quite different from the typical Boeing 757-200W configurations we compared with from Delta Air Lines and United Airlines in October.

We can also see that Airbus has assumed non LD3-45 loaded passenger bags. The bags simply does not fit for 206 passengers in a containerized concept with normal assumptions for bags per passenger and bags per container. It requires nine containers free and we would only have seven after the three fuel tanks have been installed. With bulk-loaded bags, including using the bulk cargo area, the bags for 206 passengers will fit with a bit of room to spare.

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2015/01/15/airbu ... ats-there/

So you can get 206 passengers in two classes (note: not the 240 one-class count) to max range (4000nm still air, 3500nm realistic) if you also use an unrealistic showroom configuration and do not use containers.

We shall see exactly what Boeing presents, but if you presume what we know from Boeing (two main NMA versions: a 225-seat model with a 5,000 nm range and a larger, 275-seat version with a range of roughly 4,500 nm) is using similar assumptions (two classes, showroom configuration, bulk loading) there is a meaningful gap in terms of range and passenger count (and presumably, efficiency too).


If you squeeze range by using such extreme tactics it becomes a real world range less than the A321LR which as we know is not enough for TATL for Lufthansa.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 17736
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:15 pm

StTim wrote:
If you squeeze range by using such extreme tactics it becomes a real world range less than the A321LR which as we know is not enough for TATL for Lufthansa.

I'm confused about what point you're trying to make.

Leeham showed what Airbus quoted for Airbus A321LR (208 seats in two classes, 4000 nm still air / 3500 nm real world range) is realistic if you assume a showroom configuration and no containers. If you move that to a real LH configuration (actual business class seats, kitchens, lavs) and (presumably) containers, you do end up with something that LH would not find acceptable for general TATL service.

I'm presuming Boeing is also making favorable assumptions in the numbers we read (two main NMA versions: a 225-seat model with a 5,000 nm range and a larger, 275-seat version with a range of roughly 4,500 nm) and they have to get knocked down too, but there's still a meaningful gap between A321LR and NMA when you compare marketing/brochure numbers.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
StTim
Posts: 2818
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:33 pm

I was misreading the still air quote in the above post.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2636
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:42 pm

Revelation wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Boeing usually quotes two class configurations. The 767-200 is 216 seats and 767-300 is 261. That tells us the plane they are proposing is almost identical in size to the 767-200/300 but with less range.

I would suggest not getting distracted when people start quoting single class seat counts that make the A321 sound similar in size, when in reality there is a gap.

Especially when they post high single class seat counts (with accompanying baggage) and maximum range in the same sentence.

Leeham spelled out the trade-offs:

With our trip through the realities of the Airbus A321neo, we have learned the different trades that have to be considered for an airline that buys a A321LR for Trans-Atlantic missions. A big influence will be the cabin and optional equipments choices. Airbus advertises the A321LR at launch as 16 business class (36 inch pitch) and 190 economy (30 inch pitch) for a total of 206 seats. Our model shows that the empty weight of the A321LR has to stay below 52t for this to work, so Airbus assumes a typical “OEM show room” configuration with very basic assumptions for seat weights, IFE, galley equipment, aircraft options, quite different from the typical Boeing 757-200W configurations we compared with from Delta Air Lines and United Airlines in October.

We can also see that Airbus has assumed non LD3-45 loaded passenger bags. The bags simply does not fit for 206 passengers in a containerized concept with normal assumptions for bags per passenger and bags per container. It requires nine containers free and we would only have seven after the three fuel tanks have been installed. With bulk-loaded bags, including using the bulk cargo area, the bags for 206 passengers will fit with a bit of room to spare.

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2015/01/15/airbu ... ats-there/

So you can get 206 passengers in two classes (note: not the 240 one-class count) to max range (4000nm still air, 3500nm realistic) if you also use an unrealistic showroom configuration and do not use containers.

We shall see exactly what Boeing presents, but if you presume what we know from Boeing (two main NMA versions: a 225-seat model with a 5,000 nm range and a larger, 275-seat version with a range of roughly 4,500 nm) is using similar assumptions (two classes, showroom configuration, bulk loading) there is a meaningful gap in terms of range and passenger count (and presumably, efficiency too).


Good points. For reference, JetBlue flies two class A321s with 16 lie flat business class seats. Those planes only have 159 seats. The A321LR can fly transatlantic with that low of a seat count without trouble, but that may be too small for many airlines.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6393
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 7:08 pm

Revelation wrote:
StTim wrote:
If you squeeze range by using such extreme tactics it becomes a real world range less than the A321LR which as we know is not enough for TATL for Lufthansa.

I'm confused about what point you're trying to make.

Leeham showed what Airbus quoted for Airbus A321LR (208 seats in two classes, 4000 nm still air / 3500 nm real world range) is realistic if you assume a showroom configuration and no containers. If you move that to a real LH configuration (actual business class seats, kitchens, lavs) and (presumably) containers, you do end up with something that LH would not find acceptable for general TATL service.

I'm presuming Boeing is also making favorable assumptions in the numbers we read (two main NMA versions: a 225-seat model with a 5,000 nm range and a larger, 275-seat version with a range of roughly 4,500 nm) and they have to get knocked down too, but there's still a meaningful gap between A321LR and NMA when you compare marketing/brochure numbers.


Sorry, but the quoted seat number for the MoM mean nothing without a specified cabin configuration. In a pure 30" single class configuration, 225 can mean anything from 225 to ~270 seats and 275 can mean anything from 275 to ~340 seats.
 
seabiscuit
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 1:08 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 7:23 pm

Will this aircraft create more sales or just pull from 737 and 787 demand
Seabiscuit
 
StTim
Posts: 2818
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 7:31 pm

seabiscuit wrote:
Will this aircraft create more sales or just pull from 737 and 787 demand


Mostly the latter.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2636
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 7:56 pm

StTim wrote:
seabiscuit wrote:
Will this aircraft create more sales or just pull from 737 and 787 demand


Mostly the latter.


It will also pull from A321 and A330neo sales. The A330 family is the one where I see sales coming from. No airline in China has ordered the A330neo yet. Air China, China Southern, Cathay Pacific, China Eastern, etc are big A330 customers. If the larger 797 has enough passenger and cargo capacity, but much lower operating costs, that could be very appealing in China.

People keep talking about Transatlantic, but I see the high capacity short to medium haul market having lots of opportunity. The A300 was decades too early. Back when it was in production, Beijing and Shanghai airports had about a dozen gates and were ghost towns.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10924
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:07 pm

36 inch business class for 6-8 hr flight is totally unrealistic. No larger airline uses it. Maybe the odd leisure airline. Business Class is sleeperseat across e.g. the Atlantic yhese days. Single class 31-32 inch single class economy is a far better metric if you want compare different aircraft.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
StTim
Posts: 2818
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:21 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
StTim wrote:
seabiscuit wrote:
Will this aircraft create more sales or just pull from 737 and 787 demand


Mostly the latter.


It will also pull from A321 and A330neo sales. The A330 family is the one where I see sales coming from. No airline in China has ordered the A330neo yet. Air China, China Southern, Cathay Pacific, China Eastern, etc are big A330 customers. If the larger 797 has enough passenger and cargo capacity, but much lower operating costs, that could be very appealing in China.

People keep talking about Transatlantic, but I see the high capacity short to medium haul market having lots of opportunity. The A300 was decades too early. Back when it was in production, Beijing and Shanghai airports had about a dozen gates and were ghost towns.



In which case they need the larger cargo capacity. I agree it will also be A321 (a bit but a bit more than the 737) and the A330.
 
caverunner17
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:48 pm

Samrnpage wrote:
Honestly, the smart thing to do would make the MOM or next clean sheet design to be the 737 replacement with a model list like the A320 series but bigger. Example:

797-700 170 seats
797-800 200 seats
797-900 230 seats
797-1000 250 seats

All with decent range of 3000-5000

So covers 737 and MOM and has fleet commonality with each other.


This is what makes the most sense to me, except have a bigger wing on the 1000 to allow for 5000nm range.

I just don't see the point of a clean sheet new widebody for such a small market. Airlines, except the Iceland based ones seem to all be up-gauging their TATL routes to larger aircraft. In addition, widebodies are significantly more expensive than a narrowbody. The only thing I could see would be a 767MAX or a 787-3 with properly redesigned wingbox, wing, and gear that cuts 15-20% of the weight (a la the A310 vs A330).

If anything this makes more sense to be like a 757v2 with a 000,100,200,300 than a 767 replacement (which is arguably the 787 already)
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2636
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sun Mar 11, 2018 12:11 am

StTim wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
StTim wrote:

Mostly the latter.


It will also pull from A321 and A330neo sales. The A330 family is the one where I see sales coming from. No airline in China has ordered the A330neo yet. Air China, China Southern, Cathay Pacific, China Eastern, etc are big A330 customers. If the larger 797 has enough passenger and cargo capacity, but much lower operating costs, that could be very appealing in China.

People keep talking about Transatlantic, but I see the high capacity short to medium haul market having lots of opportunity. The A300 was decades too early. Back when it was in production, Beijing and Shanghai airports had about a dozen gates and were ghost towns.



In which case they need the larger cargo capacity. I agree it will also be A321 (a bit but a bit more than the 737) and the A330.


From what i have read, the 737-10 may fit more cargo than the A321. Most airlines in China bulk load their A320s. More cargo fits for bulkloading. I wonder if anyone would want to bulk load a twin aisle like a 797 proposal. It takes longer and more people but it increases useable volume.
 
trex8
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sun Mar 11, 2018 12:30 am

There was another thread where the cargo capacity of the A320/7337 series was compared. I actually calculated the likely Max10 capacity by looking at increased length of the various certified versions and known underfloor capacity and extrapolating for the max10 increased length and and it is indeed more than a A321 but then someone pointed out that on a 737 the cargo doors open inwards and that portion of the hold is not really capable of being used.(You may have trouble opening the door if you have stuff on the other side. Effectively a door sized length of the hold is off limits. On the A320 series with outward opening doors you can stack bags or load containers right at the door. Since the hold volume difference between the A321 and Max10 was literally a couple of meters of fuselage length difference, this door issue may effectively negate any significant theoretical 737 advantage.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1382
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sun Mar 11, 2018 12:41 am

william wrote:
keesje wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
I don't see anything North American about my post. I can see specific airlines, be they Asian or North American wanting cargo above passengers. A really good cargo or a really good passenger plane will create the market. And no, this is not a case of build it and they will come. Asia will have as much need for this plane as NA or Europe or Africa or the Sub Continent. Some airlines won't need it. About the time Boeing has 1500 orders Airbus will come up with a competitive product, slightly different and maybe a little (emphasize little) more cargo friendly.


As things are looking now, Airbus might have a another cheaper, lighter responds rather 2-3 years before Boeing has the 797 ready. And they have 3000 A321NEO/LR's in the backlog today. The complication is, everybody knows / can predict.

It slow becoming visible In reality Airbus might have already won the first round of the battle, started with Boeings first MoM presentations, 5 years ago. The airlines are (again) not waiting. The A321LR is today by far the cheapest, most compatible workable TATL option. While Boeing is still doing powerpoints & dealing with airlines that do not agree with e.g. cargo capability.
.
http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/airbus-a321lr-populate-iag-transatlantic-fleet

Image


It been reported by trade mags the airlines were not interested in a Boeing A321, but you keep try sell something the customer says they are not interested in. I still looking for quotes of airline officials clamoring for a stretched A321 with a new wing. Such a plane of course would sell by nature being a part of the A320 family.

They are interested in what specifically meets their particular needs. Boeing is probably telling all the potential customers they can do that. They can't, of course. Boeing will work out something that will sell to maximise ROI and the rest will make do with other planes.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 397
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sun Mar 11, 2018 1:02 am

Revelation wrote:
StTim wrote:
If you squeeze range by using such extreme tactics it becomes a real world range less than the A321LR which as we know is not enough for TATL for Lufthansa.

I'm confused about what point you're trying to make.

Leeham showed what Airbus quoted for Airbus A321LR (208 seats in two classes, 4000 nm still air / 3500 nm real world range) is realistic if you assume a showroom configuration and no containers. If you move that to a real LH configuration (actual business class seats, kitchens, lavs) and (presumably) containers, you do end up with something that LH would not find acceptable for general TATL service.

Of course LH is not UA but UA happily operates their 757 with 169 seats in a long-haul configuration. Then again, LH doesn't even operate the 787 or the A330-200, so it might be a bit on the small side for them.
I'm presuming Boeing is also making favorable assumptions in the numbers we read (two main NMA versions: a 225-seat model with a 5,000 nm range and a larger, 275-seat version with a range of roughly 4,500 nm) and they have to get knocked down too, but there's still a meaningful gap between A321LR and NMA when you compare marketing/brochure numbers.

It looks very similar to the gap between the 757-200 and the 767-300.

Something interesting from 2003 (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/ameri ... index.html):
At a press briefing outside closed-door talks with dozens of potential buyers of the 200-to 300-seat 7E7 jet family, a key Boeing official said the program was building momentum as the board of directors considers endorsing the project next month.

"This airplane, I believe, will be a superb machine for operating with the airlines in terms of its economy," said Peter Gardner, U.S. technical vice president at Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. "To match (the 7E7), the competition is really going to have to stretch out."

Slightly less enthusiastic was Nico Buchholz, senior vice president Corporate Fleet-Deutsche Lufthansa AG, who praised the "significant improvements" the 7E7 could offer, but reserved final judgment pending more details. "The aircraft from our perspective has developed positively into something which we see today. We still have some way to go," Buchholz said.

Boeing tentatively plans to build the 7E7 for deliveries starting in 2008, replacing its 757 and 767 models and going head-to-head with the popular A330 from rival Airbus SAS.

Airbus officials have said they might fit 7E7 engines on the A330, cutting the operating advantage, though questions have arisen over related engineering costs.

  • Neither LH nor CX bought the 787 but obviously Boeing was in talks with them very early.
  • The 787 massively grew in scope from a 757 medium-haul replacement to a 777-200LR replacement. The NMA has to be careful not to do the same.
  • Airbus was very quick to consider an A330neo - the A350 Mk1 - but it took them 15 years to complete.
 
jagraham
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sun Mar 11, 2018 1:33 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The problem is that we have no idea what cabin configuration those seat numbers mean. 225 seats single class is 3 rows less than a 767-2 at 32" pitch, which today would probably be reduced to 30". So about 31-32 rows, which would be 737-8 length. So maybe 42m overall due to the bigger diameter. There is imho no way to achieve an acceptable fineness ratio for such a plane.
Even if they can squeeze the fuselage average diameter to 4,60m it is still an FR of around 9, which simply is bad. This short fuselage means that your tail also needs to be bigger and this adds an additional penalty. Imho there is no realistic way to even come close to an A321 or 737-1000 with such a design.


Boeing usually quotes two class configurations. The 767-200 is 216 seats and 767-300 is 261. That tells us the plane they are proposing is almost identical in size to the 767-200/300 but with less range.

I would suggest not getting distracted when people start quoting single class seat counts that make the A321 sound similar in size, when in reality there is a gap.



Ranges are actually close to the non-ER versions of the 767. Otherwise I agree. 206 seats in an A321 with no business class will not fly for the TATL incumbents.

As for A321LR efficiency, those three tanks carry 9000 liters extra fuel. For 39000 liters total. The standard 757 which has been so derided here carries 42000 liters. Not much difference. And the 757 has a higher weight variant which is what is used on most TATL flights. Even the 767-300 non ER holds 63000 liters - for 290 pax single class.

So the A321LR carries 189 liters per pax, the standard 757 carries 200 liters per pax, and the 767-300A carries 217 liters per pax (for almost 1/3 more pax, and much older technology). Which is why the established airlines are not rushing to park their 757s and 767s for A321LRs.

On the other end, to do 300 pax one class and 5000 nm creates a payload (30000 kg) and fuel (about 120000 liters, 97000 kg) which is 787 / A350 territory. The margin versus the existing planes will be too small for the investment.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sun Mar 11, 2018 1:50 am

Would B consider something radical such as the tail mounted gas or electric engine that reenergizes wake turbulence?

This is supposed to offer 7-22% fuel burn improvements and would alleviate the need for not yet developed larger wing mounted engines.

Future versions could be electric.

This could be one way to produce wide bodies that have single isle economics.

However big this niche is, Boeing needs to create a large most around it. This is how money is made in this business.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sun Mar 11, 2018 1:52 am

Sorry meant to say 7-12% fuel burn reduction
 
astuteman
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:39 am

jagraham wrote:
As for A321LR efficiency, those three tanks carry 9000 liters extra fuel. For 39000 liters total. The standard 757 which has been so derided here carries 42000 liters. Not much difference. And the 757 has a higher weight variant which is what is used on most TATL flights. Even the 767-300 non ER holds 63000 liters - for 290 pax single class.

So the A321LR carries 189 liters per pax, the standard 757 carries 200 liters per pax, and the 767-300A carries 217 liters per pax (for almost 1/3 more pax, and much older technology). Which is why the established airlines are not rushing to park their 757s and 767s for A321LRs.

On the other end, to do 300 pax one class and 5000 nm creates a payload (30000 kg) and fuel (about 120000 liters, 97000 kg) which is 787 / A350 territory. The margin versus the existing planes will be too small for the investment.


I think you are mis-reading the A321 ACAP.
The the fuel capacity of an A321 with 2 ACT's is 29 700 litres.
The 3 x ACT's of an A321LR give it a capacity of only 32 800 litres, not 39 000 litres.

This 32 800 litres compares to 42 600 litres for the 757 - only 75% of the capacity of a 757

Rgds
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6743
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:58 am

Regarding the numbers for the sales potential for the different versions or ideas for how the MOM, NMA or 797 should look.

The talk was about about 4,000 frames.

A.) If we look at the small wide body with an oval fuselage and very limited cargo abilities, like the North American airlines seem to want, what could the market be. My guess would be 600 to 1,000 frames in North America and 500 frames in other sales areas.
B.) If we look at the small wide body, smaller than the 787-8 or A330-800, a 767 replacement in size and cargo capabilities, my guess would be about 2,000 frames in Asia and some 500 to 1,000 frames in the rest of the world.
If the 797 is the version A, it would lead to the Asian customers buying more A330neo or 787 and only limited numbers of 797.
If the 797 is the version B, the North American airlines would buy limited numbers of it, less 787 and A330neo and add more A321neo and more 737-10.
 
parapente
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:40 am

Interesting analysis mjoelnir.Of course the numbers are totally speculative but strong rumour has been published about the East/West split regarding the importance of cargo.Right now 'The East' would -as you say - have to leap all the way up to long range planes such as the 330neo.I am sure they too would like a mid range optimised aircraft indeed I believe they have already showed their interest.

Whether it would be competitive or not it's hard to say but Airbus might consider an aircraft better suited to the Asian (cargo) requirements.
It could be a new build -but that's dead expensive.However they might consider a 'slightly shortened version of the 338 fuse with all new carbon wing (and 50klbs engine of course).

They have made so many variants of the MLG/And central box section (A300,310,330,340) that they can probably go for a modified off the peg solution here.
Obviously a wider fuse is more drag but if (Asia note) it used 9ab it would be pretty efficient.It would certainly meet all cargo requirements.
Anyway just a thought.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10924
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:13 pm

I think container cargo capability of the A321 next to its 220+ seat capacity is what makes it unique and a hot seller.

The 737, 757, A310, 767 never offered this combination of cost efficiency and capability.

Ben Sandilands ( :tombstone: :candle: ) wrote a nice article about this Asian perspective.

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2016/10/08/airbus-mom-will-drive-asia-pacific-changes/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1976
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:22 pm

There are a couple of significant manufacturing things Boeing has said which are in play on the NMA. The first is Boeings comment that the 787 was the heaviest barrel they ever would make. The second is what 3D printing would be doing to simplify production. A third thing, related to the previous two is what Boeing has learned with the 777X wing design and production.

While it is temporary, Boeing may have a significant lead over Airbus with the NMA.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:03 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
The first is Boeings comment that the 787 was the heaviest barrel they ever would make.


You'd imagine so. Wonder would they see better value in going the frame and panel approach compared to sticking with the barrel.

That still doesn't mean a CFRP fuselage is the better overall approach for 797, they could end up with Al-Li.


frmrCapCadet wrote:
The second is what 3D printing would be doing to simplify production.


You'd have to imagine not an awful lot (just yet). It would be extremely risky at this point to bet significant proportions of a program on ALM when it is not yet certified in any PSEs (that I know of).

If Boeing commit to ALM now, and find out in 3 years that it isn't going to work out - that re-engineering is a simply massive expense - in both time and money.

frmrCapCadet wrote:
A third thing, related to the previous two is what Boeing has learned with the 777X wing design and production.


They have produced two CFRP wings within a short period of time. Stands to reason that many of the lessons learned will be fresh in the memory when designing/building a 3rd wing -- but they wouldn't want to dither too much, otherwise the wise heads will be gone.
 
User avatar
tlecam
Posts: 1081
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:45 pm

If this has been posted already, I apologize for the duplicate. Jon Ostrower recently posted this on his personal website (he left CNN).

https://jonostrower.com/2018/03/the-boe ... rendering/
BOS-LGA-JFK | A:319/20/21, 332/3, 346 || B:717, 735, 737, 738, 739, 752, 753, 762, 763, 764, 787, 772, 744 || MD80, MD90
 
pabloeing
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:00 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:53 pm

Amazing news about B797 from Ostrower
 
george77300
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 8:33 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:05 pm

tlecam wrote:
If this has been posted already, I apologize for the duplicate. Jon Ostrower recently posted this on his personal website (he left CNN).

https://jonostrower.com/2018/03/the-boe ... rendering/


This is finally a lot more solid information. Lots of airlines expressed interest now.
A306 A313 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A388

B712 B733 B734 B735 B738 B742 B744 B752 B763 B772 B77E B773 B77W

AT75 AT76 C208 P46T SR20 SR22 TBM8

BA EI EK EY FR GT IG JQ KX PG PW QF QR SQ TG TP U2 UA VS WY ZB
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2672
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:22 pm

DId we really learn anything new? We (Anet) have been making the same guesses.
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:22 pm

tlecam wrote:
If this has been posted already, I apologize for the duplicate. Jon Ostrower recently posted this on his personal website (he left CNN).

https://jonostrower.com/2018/03/the-boe ... rendering/

So a 757 Max?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 17736
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:24 pm

tlecam wrote:
If this has been posted already, I apologize for the duplicate. Jon Ostrower recently posted this on his personal website (he left CNN).

https://jonostrower.com/2018/03/the-boe ... rendering/

Thanks, tlecam. I saw his tease on Twitter and was wondering what he was up to.

:cloudnine: :cool2: :couple: :goldmedal: :goodvibes: :highfive: :kiss2: :veryhappy: :yes:
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:24 pm

tlecam wrote:
If this has been posted already, I apologize for the duplicate. Jon Ostrower recently posted this on his personal website (he left CNN).

https://jonostrower.com/2018/03/the-boe ... rendering/


Until we know the wingspan, weights and engine...we don't know much
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:25 pm

george77300 wrote:
tlecam wrote:
If this has been posted already, I apologize for the duplicate. Jon Ostrower recently posted this on his personal website (he left CNN).

https://jonostrower.com/2018/03/the-boe ... rendering/


This is finally a lot more solid information. Lots of airlines expressed interest now.
Really? Seems like a lot of speculation based off an artists rendering.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos