Definitely a wide body. At first I thought it would be a replacement for both
the 757 and
767 but I was wrong. I also thought it would retain the 767's said to be popular 7 abreast seating in Y. Also wrong. I never had the chance to fly a 767 yet (the only BCAG product I haven't flown with the 707 and 717 but that latter one doesn't really count as Boeing, does it; and I wasn't on the market when the 707s were around
) so I can't second that popularity vote. I'm sad about not having flown the 767 because I find it's an aircraft really suited for a lot of uses, just add a bit more range.
It turns out the 7E7 will be that totally perfect aircraft with ample range, but will not fit in as a 757 replacement. Probably what will succeed to the 737 family will be taking care of that.
And then we get started on the topic of Airbus' view of more and more trunk routes (A380) and Boeing's view of more and more point-to-point services (7E7). If there are enough aircraft built to support the vast number of combinations to be covered by a point-to-point 7E7 global network and if there is enough O/D traffic and yield to support sufficient frequencies on those routes then I vote Boeing's strategy a winner. I'm afraid Airbus is playing on the safer side though.
At least the replies to my topic on the future of service between Brussels and Asia make me think so with most people bashing the ability of BRU
to support almost any route with the East, in great part due to its geographical location at the center between AMS
and to the dominance of key airline alliances at those stations. Time only will tell.