TSS
Topic Author
Posts: 2485
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:01 am

Is there any new info on Y1's progress?

Will the Y1 employ a dramatic new shape, or will it be mostly conventional in appearance?

Is the janitor at P&W's test facility getting tired of sweeping up bits of shattered gearboxes, or are the GTF test engines performing as well as expected?

Could another engine manufacturer meet Boeing's desired fuel-efficiency increases through a different technology?

Will the Y1 line be split among two fuselage widths, a single-aisle one for 90-, 108-, and 128-seat versions and a twin-aisle one for 150-, 180-, and 220-seat versions?

Will the ease of assembly of CFRP barrels outweigh the modest weight savings over aluminum panels in narrowbody aircraft, thus making it the construction method of choice for these new airliners?

Will any version of Y1 come close to the takeoff and climb performance standard set by the dearly-departed 757?

I realize conclusive answers to any of these questions are impossible at this point, but it is fun to speculate.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:16 am

If I was running the program, I'd have a single-aisle plane with an interior cabin (not necessarily fuselage) width 4-6" wider then the A320 to allow 3+3 at 18" with an aisle large enough for two people or to pass each other during (dis)embarking or to get past the service cart in-flight.

I'd have four models:

797-1: 150 passengers / 3000nm range
797-2: 200 passengers / 2500nm range
797-3: 200 passengers / 4500nm range
797-4: 225 passengers / 4000nm range

The 797-1 and 797-2 would appeal to LCCs and "domestic" ops. They'd be built lighter with lower MEWs and MTOWs for better fuel efficiency, cheaper acquisition costs, and cheaper landing fees.

The 797-3 and 797-4 would replace the 757-200 on trans-Atlantic missions to secondary city-pairs. They'd be the "HGW" versions with higher MEWs and MTOWs.

All four would be made from CFRP and use either LEAP56 or GTF powerplants.
 
futurecaptain
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:54 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:30 am

Quoting TSS (Thread starter):
Will the Y1 employ a dramatic new shape, or will it be mostly conventional in appearance?

Probably be conventional tube and wings. As much as people would like something drastically new, realistically it will most likely look like today's airplanes on the outside.

Quoting TSS (Thread starter):
Is the janitor at P&W's test facility getting tired of sweeping up bits of shattered gearboxes, or are the GTF test engines performing as well as expected?

Pratt says the engine testing is going well and achieving the desired efficiency.

Quoting TSS (Thread starter):
Could another engine manufacturer meet Boeing's desired fuel-efficiency increases through a different technology?

I'm sure Rolls and GE have their own designs on the board for a new, more efficient, engine. The narrowbody market is for so many frames it would be suicide to not compete to get your engine on the plane.

Quoting TSS (Thread starter):
Will the Y1 line be split among two fuselage widths, a single-aisle one for 90-, 108-, and 128-seat versions and a twin-aisle one for 150-, 180-, and 220-seat versions?

Who ever said there will be 6 versions with these seat counts?
AirSO. ASpaceO. ASOnline. ASO.com ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO.
 
hawkercamm
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 4:15 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:10 am

Quoting TSS (Thread starter):
Will the ease of assembly of CFRP barrels outweigh the modest weight savings over aluminum panels in narrowbody aircraft, thus making it the construction method of choice for these new airliners?

CFRP is likely to be superior due to its fatigue properties considering the high cycles numbers, even if there are no significant weight differences.

Y1 could potentially be 2 different aircraft sharing cockpit and flight systems.

Firstly
Y1a-100 - 120seats - M0.7 to 0.75 - 2000nm Unducted turbo Fan
Y1a-200 - 150seats - M0.7 to 0.75 - 2000nm UDF
Y1a-300 - 180seats - M0.7 to 0.75 - 2000nm UDF

Y1a will be optimised for very short sectors (~2hrs) and will benefit from significant fuel burn improvements over B737/A320. This will need to be of the order of -30%. The slower cruise speed and a slightly lower cruise altitude are required for the UDF.
This aircraft would be the perfect LCC aircraft and must have excellent fuel burn to keep the future breed of environmentalist looking at proper polluting industries.
(...Like the US automotive industry with its array of 15-20MPG 4.0litre 150BHP machines  cheeky  )

Secondly
Y1b-100 - 150seats - M0.8 - 3000nm - GTF
Y1b-200 - 180seats - M0.8 - 4000nm - GTF
Y1b-300 - 210seats - M0.8 - 3000nm* - GTF [*-200 and -300 share MTOW for commonality.]

Y1b would be capable of US transcontinental and Europe/East Coast flights in a comfortable 2-class and achieve the 3000nm to 4000nm ranges above. Alternatively it could be used in high density single class with 200-300 seats for shorter ranges.

Both aircraft would benefit from 787 composite technology but take it to the next generation. Perhaps a technology to look at would be more bonding of composite primary structure to reduce the number of fasteners and significantly reduce manufacture time / cost and may be weight. Bonding techniques are currently used in military aircraft but are probably consider too immature for commercial aircraft at present. Just as CFRP primary structure was 30years ago!

I believe there will be a big enough market for both Airbus and Boeing to develop 2 aircraft each optimised for the missions above. It may be possible that Y1A is produced with a partner manufacture like Embraer or Bombardier or even more significant Chinese / Japanese work. (Final Assembly?)
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:11 am

I personally believe there will be two cabin widths, one for the low cost carriers and one for airlines that want to replace the 757 on domestic and international flights. The one for LCCs will be single aisle and have range for transcon with different passenger numbers for flexibility. The other will be a twin aisle for more comfort and cargo and would be perfect for DL and their transcon 757s
 
TSS
Topic Author
Posts: 2485
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:16 am

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 2):
Who ever said there will be 6 versions with these seat counts?

Boeing7E7 speculated as much in another thread which inspired this one:

Quoting Boeing7E7:
Quoting Futurecaptain:I predict Y1 to cover 149-200 seats.
Two Class:

90, 108, 128, 150, 180, 220 - Same as the 737 and 757 line with better economics

I assumed he was using the capacities of current 737 and past 757 configurations as guidelines. While I doubt Y1 will use all or any of these exact capacities, I thought they were as good a starting point as any.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4919
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:21 am

Perhaps if Y1 is split into two families, the smaller variants would use a 2-3 five-abreast layout (similar to the DC-9 family) while the larger variants would use a 2-2-2 six-abreast twin-aisle layout. The twin aisle layout might be useful for some airlines, such as Delta for their transcon services. Not to mention, it will also allow for single-file LD3 containers in the cargo area.

Winglets should be standard on all models. The smaller variants should feature large shelf bins with holding rails, while the larger variants should feature 787-style pivot bins.
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7071
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:28 am

We all know one will be a 757 replacement and another for a 737. That leads us to one being 175-225 pax and another being 118-170 pax range. Also, the first will most likely have a 4000+ mile range while the second will be 2900-3500 mile range. Expect BBJ's for both.

Hunter
Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:17 am

It is rather certain that AA and DL will be major buyers of both.
 
n844aa
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:38 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:21 am

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 8):
It is rather certain that AA and DL will be major buyers of both.

I'm fond of saying that Boeing could launch a very successful Y1 program by selling it to Texas airlines alone. I figure AA, CO, and WN are good for at least 1500 frames over the life of the program. The rest of the world is just gravy.  Wink
New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:01 am

I remain somewhat unconvinced on the advantages of having two narrowbody fuselage widths, as it just makes scheduling more difficult. And I am not sure that 2+2+2 offers anything over 3+3 with an aisle 4" wider. Twin aisles might make (dis)embarking faster, but chances are both aisles will clog. And it is a given they will with service carts. And the wider plane creates more drag. A 4-6" wider single aisle should help people squeak by their peers and the carts without causing as much extra drag.

Plus I am not sure airlines want six different configurations from a fleet-planning aspect. And I am not sure that offering a model with seating under 150 seats or between 150 and 200 seats is necessary. For some airlines, the 738 has trip costs almost equal to the 73G, but generates more revenue from those extra seats. And you need three FAs minimum with both, so crew costs are no cheaper. Better to optimize two models, one with 150 seats and one with 200 seats, for "short-haul" and "long-haul" operations. That way, an airline operating all four types has excellent flexibility. They can sub a long-haul model for a short-haul 1:1, which makes domestic irregular ops easier to plan for.
 
hawkercamm
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 4:15 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:36 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
I remain somewhat unconvinced on the advantages of having two narrowbody fuselage widths, as it just makes scheduling more difficult. And I am not sure that 2+2+2 offers anything over 3+3 with an aisle 4" wider. Twin aisles might make (dis)embarking faster, but chances are both aisles will clog. And it is a given they will with service carts. And the wider plane creates more drag. A 4-6" wider single aisle should help people squeak by their peers and the carts without causing as much extra drag.

I agree that 2+2+2 is not a very efficient cross section. 3+3 with slightly wider aisles is much better.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
Plus I am not sure airlines want six different configurations from a fleet-planning aspect. And I am not sure that offering a model with seating under 150 seats or between 150 and 200 seats is necessary

If this is referenced at my proposed 2 aircraft families above I would like to add the follow comments
> They are very different configurations. Y1a being like the easyjet concept
> Y1a is optimised about 2000nm and flies slower to work with the UDF
> In reality Y1a will only be used for mostly ~2hr sectors. Perfect for LCCs
> The shorter the sector the bigger the benefit for the UDF. It'll be significantly more efficient during take-off and climb
> The Y1a aircraft will not be perfect for all. Hence Y1b
> Y1a design would need to trade between 2+3 or 3+3
> Y1b would be 3+3 with wider aisles
> Y1b can be used on 3000nm to 4000nm ranges in a spacious 2-class or for shorter ranges in a more dense 1-class
> The payload range built into Y1b would not be as efficient for 1000-2000nm sectors as Y1a. Hence Y1a & Y1b.
> Y1b would come first since the P&W GTF is due to be available first. EIS 2015/17
> Y1a would EIS ~2020
> Still expect A320/B737 production sometime past Y1. I am sure there will be a period when both are built together. This could be as long as 5 years after Y1 EIS.
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:50 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
I remain somewhat unconvinced on the advantages of having two narrowbody fuselage widths, as it just makes scheduling more difficult. And I am not sure that 2+2+2 offers anything over 3+3 with an aisle 4" wider.

Well people like me who hate a single aisle plane would enjoy it, my mom gets claustrophobic (i have no idea how to spell that!) and does much better on a 767 than a 757 because of the width. A twin aisle is much more comfortable to me and scheduling wouldn't be much different with 2 single aisles compared to 1 single and 1 twin, it would be just like switching from a 738 to a 752, unless they are identical planes there will always be some issues with swapping the planes.

Quoting N844AA (Reply 9):
I'm fond of saying that Boeing could launch a very successful Y1 program by selling it to Texas airlines alone. I figure AA, CO, and WN are good for at least 1500 frames over the life of the program. The rest of the world is just gravy.

Then add DL and possible UA (probably not UA i think they will stick with Airbus for the narrow body segment which will be interesting to see what NW and US decide when airbus comes out with the A320RS)

Quoting HawkerCamm (Reply 11):
Y1b would come first since the P&W GTF is due to be available first. EIS 2015/17
> Y1a would EIS ~2020
> Still expect A320/B737 production sometime past Y1. I am sure there will be a period when both are built together. This could be as long as 5 years after Y1 EIS.

That is really interesting and makes more sense then the current 737-600 up to 739, they need something more like the E jets E170/190 for the smaller market and might wait until new engines are available for that. The A320RS coming later in a way could help airbus to make it a little better than the 737NNG but Boeing would get the bulk of the orders much like the 787 and A350, Airbus would definately be a little behind since they are still working out a little more of the A380 and still have the A350 to wory about plus having something to replace the smaller A330 to compete with the 757/767 that is still not out, i may not like airbus but i do feel bad for them that they are not in a position to fight back immediately
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:35 am

I think something like the EasyJet concept would actually be built by Embraer or Bombardier with significant input and assistance from Boeing. If you could give it a "common cockpit" with the 737RS to keep crew training costs to a minimum, it might fly (excuse the pun).
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:09 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
And I am not sure that 2+2+2 offers anything over 3+3 with an aisle 4" wider.

Much more pax appeal!!!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
Twin aisles might make (dis)embarking faster

They do.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
And the wider plane creates more drag.

Not neccessarily... it really depends on the cross section that is finally adopted.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
I think something like the EasyJet concept would actually be built by Embraer or Bombardier with significant input and assistance from Boeing.

Not EMB or B... but perhaps MHI. Remember that they are a huge Boeing prime and will likely go ahead with the 70- to 90- seat MRJ that they unveiled in Paris with a planned EIS of 2012. It will be an-all composite program.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:42 am

I think passengers would prefer 3+3 18" wide seats and an aisle they can get past during cart service over 2+2+2 17" wide seats with aisles they can't get past.

People have to stop in the aisle, whether you have one or two to load and unload bags from the overhead and when they do, the flow of traffic stops because you cannot get past them. That is why airlines load from the back, to try and minimize the impact of those stops. Being able to get past them to your seat should increase turn times, even if you have less aisles, because traffic doesn't stop.
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 7:23 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
If I was running the program, I'd have a single-aisle plane with an interior cabin (not necessarily fuselage) width 4-6" wider then the A320 to allow 3+3 at 18" with an aisle large enough for two people or to pass each other during (dis)embarking or to get past the service cart in-flight.

I think this is the most critical decision to be made.

There will be direct head to head competition here. If one manufacturer could produce a fuselage which was significantly more comfortable for the pax and loaded and unloaded faster, they would have a distinct advantage. (I know the 320 fuselage is wider but obviously not a big enough difference to put Boeing out of the race, with the current 737).

I find it very unlikely that a twin ailse 2+2+2 could be made as weight or aerodynamically efficient as a single ailse.

If Boeing jumps first with Y!, they will want some security that Airbus cannot significantly leap frog them in terms of fuselage efficiency.

Stitch's view of 18 seatrs with a wider Ailse, makes most sense to me, and it is unlikely6 Airbus could either go under or over it, and still maintain a competitive aircraft from a pax comfort and efficiency point of view.

A couple of Red Herrings! A seven abreast twin aisle 2+3+2 could be made a lot narrower than the current 767,and would have much better efficiency than the 2+2+2 which I think is a non starter.

What about Cargo capacity.? A Y1 with a lower lobe fuselage able to take the current 320 pallets makes sense to me.

What about the Chinese? Will they enter this market in conjunction with Airbus or go it alone? The Russians, & Brazil?

Ruscoe
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 7:30 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
think passengers would prefer 3+3 18" wide seats and an aisle they can get past during cart service over 2+2+2 17" wide seats with aisles they can't get past.

The passing in the aisle is a smaller issue in a twin versus single aisle than it would appear for a few reasons...

1) No one likes sittine in a middle seat... PERIOD!!!

2) No one likes having to scrabble over 2 pax (or be climbed over) by the window seat pax during boarding or during the flight.

3) In a twin aisle, the lavs at either end are closer compared to a single aisle.

4) Some airlines have done away with using the trolleys on several flights and just run back and forth to the galleys with drinks on trays, etc. This is even easier and (and would be even more feasible on more flights) with a twin aisle.

Here is a link to a fairly interesting article about long haul single aisle flights in the NY Times...

http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/07/29...s%2fA%2fAirlines%20and%20Airplanes

excerpt...

Or you could avoid single-aisle planes altogether. Joseph Remy, a financial analyst from Washington, bought a ticket on a 757 from Newark to Dublin in October for the convenience of flying nonstop. But the experience was so miserable, he said, that he purposely avoided 757s when booking another trip to Ireland this summer.

The lack of psychological space was part of the issue. “To go that long, it just seems so small,” said Mr. Remy who was stuck next to “a very large woman” on the way east and to a drunken man on the way home. With only one aisle, “there was no escape route” to take a break from his seatmates or to get around the cart when it came down the aisle. And after having to squint at “a really small screen” for the in-flight movie, Mr. Remy said, “it felt like it was 1965.”

Mr. Remy is flying a two-aisle 767 with a stopover before landing in Dublin for his trip next month. Though a couple of flights on 757s were cheaper, Mr. Remy, said, he wasn’t tempted. “I said no way.”


Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
People have to stop in the aisle, whether you have one or two to load and unload bags from the overhead and when they do, the flow of traffic stops because you cannot get past them. That is why airlines load from the back, to try and minimize the impact of those stops. Being able to get past them to your seat should increase turn times, even if you have less aisles, because traffic doesn't stop.

Ah... but you have two aisles so you are basically boarding twice as quickly (starting from the back). Plus, with much more overhead storage it is far easier and quicker to find a place for bags. Likewise for disembarking... in fact it is even easeir than boarding. You just have to compare the difference between boarding/disembarking on a 757-300 and a 767-200... even though the 762 has a center seat in the middle section, it takes less time.... and there is no contest for pax preference!!

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 16):
I find it very unlikely that a twin ailse 2+2+2 could be made as weight or aerodynamically efficient as a single ailse.

Y1 is STILL a few years off from conceptual design... and advances are being made in materials as we type!  Smile

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 16):
A couple of Red Herrings! A seven abreast twin aisle 2+3+2 could be made a lot narrower than the current 767,and would have much better efficiency than the 2+2+2 which I think is a non starter.

Possibly but too wide in my estimation and how would it have much better efficiency?!?! If at all!
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 7:47 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 17):
1) No one likes sittine in a middle seat... PERIOD!!!

Unless the fare they pay is lower.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 17):
2) No one likes having to scrabble over 2 pax (or be climbed over) by the window seat pax during boarding or during the flight.

Unless the fare they pay is lower.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 17):
3) In a twin aisle, the lavs at either end are closer compared to a single aisle.

Nothing stops the airlines from putting a lav at the front of the cabin on a narrowbody except the desire to fit more seats in that space.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 17):
4) Some airlines have done away with using the trolleys on several flights and just run back and forth to the galleys with drinks on trays, etc. This is even easier and (and would be even more feasible on more flights) with a twin aisle.

I generally only see this in the main cabin on lightly-loaded narrowbodies. Otherwise it takes too long to take an order, go back to the galley, fill the order, deliver it, and repeat over and over again.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 17):
Ah... but you have two aisles so you are basically boarding twice as quickly (starting from the back). Plus, with much more overhead storage it is far easier and quicker to find a place for bags. Likewise for disembarking... in fact it is even easeir than boarding. You just have to compare the difference between boarding/disembarking on a 757-300 and a 767-200... even though the 762 has a center seat in the middle section, it takes less time.... and there is no contest for pax preference!!

If twin aisles were really preferable, I imagine Airbus would have done it with the A320, since they started with a clean-sheet and really could have one-upped the 737. Instead, they went for a bit more comfort and a lot more technology.

Also, a twin aisle plane will be larger and heavier requiring larger engines and require the fuselage to sit higher off the ground, increasing fuel burn and making cargo/bag loading harder since most of the time they do not use LDs or pallets.

Time will tell, of course, but my money remains on a single-aisle plane.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 8:27 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
If twin aisles were really preferable, I imagine Airbus would have done it with the A320, since they started with a clean-sheet and really could have one-upped the 737. Instead, they went for a bit more comfort and a lot more technology.

The 737RS can do a twin aisle 6Y layout with only a minimal addition in size over a A320. This is mostly due to carbon barrel construction allowing for thinner sidewalls, and more exotic shapes.

If Boeing goes for a LD3 capacity on the lower deck, then the twin aisle will be nearly "free" as it will demand a certain diameter. Even so I expect most airlines to use a 3 seat module for 3+3 with the module being common with their widebody of choice. So if they run 17.2 seats on a 787, then expect the same hardware in the 737RS. Run 18" 3-2-3 on your 787? or have A350? same seats in the 737RS.

To be blunt lets apply the 767 => 787 lesson. They didn't just barely increase the size to cover that market, but made it almost the size of a 777!!!! So clearly in the past they saw the advantage when making this jump in operating efficiency to go ahead and jump up in size too.

My BIG question is will they get enough width to do 2-1-2 with a domestic F/J seat... if they can.... OH YAH airlines are going to love that. I suspect though that 1-2-1 will still make them very happy as its a dramatic increase in perceived luxury with 0.00% effort/cost to the airline.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 8:32 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Unless the fare they pay is lower.

That has no relevance. Airlines price their tix on travel demand patterns not by seat location.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
If twin aisles were really preferable, I imagine Airbus would have done it with the A320, since they started with a clean-sheet and really could have one-upped the 737. Instead, they went for a bit more comfort and a lot more technology.

Not so. Although Airbus did look a twin aisle configuration before settling on just a bit larger cabin than the 737 Classic, it is not at all relevant to use a design decision from over 25 years ago today... so much has changed in the industry in so many ways!!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Also, a twin aisle plane will be larger and heavier requiring larger engines and require the fuselage to sit higher off the ground, increasing fuel burn and making cargo/bag loading harder since most of the time they do not use LDs or pallets.

No it won't, particularily with the advances in materials and designs over the past few years and the next 3-4 years before the next narrow body is launched.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Time will tell, of course, but my money remains on a single-aisle plane.

I wouldn't bet on anything at this point... it is far too early!!  Smile
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 8:44 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Also, a twin aisle plane will be larger and heavier requiring larger engines and require the fuselage to sit higher off the ground, increasing fuel burn and making cargo/bag loading harder since most of the time they do not use LDs or pallets.

The larger engines is what will require the plane to sit higher, not the fuselage. Even with a 787 style wing box, the 737RS will have to sit much higher to put in the newest engines than the current 737.
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:16 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 17):
Possibly but too wide in my estimation and how would it have much better efficiency?!?! If at all!

This has got to do with more seats in proportion to the "non revenue" but essential aisle(s) area.

Ruscoe
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:58 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
an interior cabin (not necessarily fuselage) width 4-6" wider then the A320 to allow 3+3 at 18" with an aisle large enough for two people or to pass each other during (dis)embarking or to get past the service cart in-flight.

If it's gotta be a single isle please God hear us poor folk that must fly economy and convince A and B to give us some wider seats and a wider isle! We're worthy!
 
DTWAGENT
Posts: 753
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:16 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:22 am

Does anyone have a drawing of what the Y1 is going to look like?

Chuck
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:36 am

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 22):
This has got to do with more seats in proportion to the "non revenue" but essential aisle(s) area.

Ah, OK, I see what you were trying to say... structural efficiency... as in the 737 is structurally more efficient than the A320. But it would have about the same practical impact as the current A320/737 structural efficiency difference... not any.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:46 am

what about more of an oval ( wider) for the twin aisle
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:54 am

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 26):
what about more of an oval ( wider) for the twin aisle

That has been suggested in a few posts above already. As to what degree it is feasible depends on several factors but there is no doubt that, if acheivable, the frontal drag area would be no greater than a single aisle.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
n844aa
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:38 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:26 pm

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 12):
Then add DL and possible UA (probably not UA i think they will stick with Airbus for the narrow body segment which will be interesting to see what NW and US decide when airbus comes out with the A320RS)

Absolutely. Like I said, I think Boeing could run a very successful narrowbody program based on three airlines alone. If they can sell the aircraft to Illinois, Georgia, Arizona, New York, and Minnesota airlines as well -- plus this strange, mysterious region of which I hear rumors, known as "the rest of the world" -- then all that additional profit is (and additional sales ares) icing on the cake.
New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:07 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
I remain somewhat unconvinced on the advantages of having two narrowbody fuselage widths, as it just makes scheduling more difficult. And I am not sure that 2+2+2 offers anything over 3+3 with an aisle 4" wider. Twin aisles might make (dis)embarking faster, but chances are both aisles will clog. And it is a given they will with service carts. And the wider plane creates more drag. A 4-6" wider single aisle should help people squeak by their peers and the carts without causing as much extra drag.

I think a twin aisle 2+2+2 configuration could be worse that 3+3 when it comes to embarking/disembarking - especially on airlines like Southwest where seating is open. It is my experience that the biggest issue loading a plane are those people for whom the world stops so they can load all their luggage, take off their jackets and coats, and remove their iPod, laptop, reading magazines, beverages, etc. that they will need for the short one hour hop. Each flight has a handfull of these people and they always seem to prefer to sit as close to the front of the aircraft so that they can inconvenience the most passengers again when the flight is over. More considerate passengers, on the other hand, spread themselves out more evenly through the cabin and then step out of the aisle and stand at the aisle seat to do their baggage configuring. This works as the aisle seat usually has enough head room to stand.

Now imagine a 2+2+2 arrangement. The overhead bins presumably will be over the top of both the window/aisle seats and maybe also be over the 2 center seats. There will be no seat in which you can stand. So even if all the regular aisle clogging people were to stop flying, the rest of us would end up clogging the aisles as we would have no other option.

I just don't see how 2 aisles will help unless the cabin were to be substantially wider than today's single aisle aircraft - and that just won't be economical.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:28 pm

Quoting N844AA (Reply 28):
Absolutely. Like I said, I think Boeing could run a very successful narrowbody program based on three airlines alone. If they can sell the aircraft to Illinois, Georgia, Arizona, New York, and Minnesota airlines as well -- plus this strange, mysterious region of which I hear rumors, known as "the rest of the world" -- then all that additional profit is (and additional sales ares) icing on the cake.

And that is another reason why Boeing feels no pressure to accelerate any Y1 EIS dates. When they do launch it will be interesting to see how many years out that they'll be sold out.

Looking at 2007 737 orders I wonder how many remember an early thread this year where there were several doom sayers stating that 737 orders had dried up and that Boeing was going to have to EIS Y1 in 2012/13 because of the dearth of orders.

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 29):
especially on airlines like Southwest where seating is open.

Oh, how many other airlines are those???

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 29):
Each flight has a handfull of these people and they always seem to prefer to sit as close to the front of the aircraft so that they can inconvenience the most passengers again when the flight is over.

The front of the plane always boards last.

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 29):
Now imagine a 2+2+2 arrangement.

Yes, what a pleasure! There won't be all those window seat pax clogging the aisle waiting for the middle seat and aisle pax on a 3+3 to get up so they can sit down, and there won't be pax blocking the aisle trying to find overhead space because the bins are already full, and disembarking will be alot easier since more people can stand in the aisle and get their gear in a 2+2+2 than a 3+3 where the window pax is always stuck or blocks the aisle as they scrammble over the middlle and aisle seats to then reach up to get their bag from the bin.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:32 am

Quoting N844AA (Reply 28):
plus this strange, mysterious region of which I hear rumors, known as "the rest of the world"

What is this "rest of the world" i have never heard of this!! Everyone knows that we are the world! ha ha
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:18 am

Quoting TSS (Thread starter):
Will the Y1 employ a dramatic new shape, or will it be mostly conventional in appearance?

All the Yellowstone airplanes are conventional wing/tube.

Quoting TSS (Thread starter):
Is the janitor at P&W's test facility getting tired of sweeping up bits of shattered gearboxes, or are the GTF test engines performing as well as expected?

Supposedly, it's going pretty well. The gearbox for the JSF is much more difficult and that will be flying in a few months.

Quoting TSS (Thread starter):
Could another engine manufacturer meet Boeing's desired fuel-efficiency increases through a different technology?

Yes. The UDF meets the fuel-efficiency requirements. Noise is a whole other problem...

Quoting TSS (Thread starter):
Will the Y1 line be split among two fuselage widths, a single-aisle one for 90-, 108-, and 128-seat versions and a twin-aisle one for 150-, 180-, and 220-seat versions?

Boeing briefly talked about this publically about 6-10 months ago. I haven't heard a peep about it since then.

Quoting TSS (Thread starter):
Will the ease of assembly of CFRP barrels outweigh the modest weight savings over aluminum panels in narrowbody aircraft, thus making it the construction method of choice for these new airliners?

Narrowbodies have a different problem re: CFRP barrels...the thickness you need to take the loads is way too thin to withstand ramp rash. At the moment, I'm pretty sure it's a toss up.

Quoting TSS (Thread starter):
Will any version of Y1 come close to the takeoff and climb performance standard set by the dearly-departed 757?

Nope. There's no need for that kind of takeoff/climb performance. It's fun but nobody will pay extra for it.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 4):
I personally believe there will be two cabin widths, one for the low cost carriers and one for airlines that want to replace the 757 on domestic and international flights.

The 737 and 757 have the same width...why would the LCC's and the 757 replacements want a different width?

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 6):
larger variants would use a 2-2-2 six-abreast twin-aisle layout. The twin aisle layout might be useful for some airlines

We will never see 2-2-2. There is no economic justification for it.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 16):
If one manufacturer could produce a fuselage which was significantly more comfortable for the pax and loaded and unloaded faster, they would have a distinct advantage.

Not necessarily. Passenger comfort has nearly zero sales value. The vast majority of passengers have demonstrated time and time again that they only care about one thing...price. Passenger comfort only generates sales in premium cabins, where fuselage width has much less bearing.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 20):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Also, a twin aisle plane will be larger and heavier requiring larger engines and require the fuselage to sit higher off the ground, increasing fuel burn and making cargo/bag loading harder since most of the time they do not use LDs or pallets.

No it won't, particularily with the advances in materials and designs over the past few years and the next 3-4 years before the next narrow body is launched.

That's the wrong comparison. It's certainly possible for a new-generation twin-aisle to be more efficient than an old-generation single-aisle but you need to compare like to like. It's physically impossible for a twin-aisle to be lighter or smaller than a single-aisle from the same technology. Given a particular fuselage, an airline will always go single aisle if they can (unless they're running all-premium service).

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 21):
Even with a 787 style wing box, the 737RS will have to sit much higher to put in the newest engines than the current 737.

Only if the engines are mounted as they are on the current 737. That is a long way from being assured.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 23):
If it's gotta be a single isle please God hear us poor folk that must fly economy and convince A and B to give us some wider seats and a wider isle! We're worthy!

A & B don't set the seat or aisle width. Airlines do. And the passengers have demonstrated time and again that they value price over comfort.

Quoting DTWAGENT (Reply 24):
Does anyone have a drawing of what the Y1 is going to look like?

Not even Boeing has that.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 27):
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 26):
what about more of an oval ( wider) for the twin aisle

That has been suggested in a few posts above already. As to what degree it is feasible depends on several factors but there is no doubt that, if acheivable, the frontal drag area would be no greater than a single aisle.

It's not the frontal drag that's the problem. You can't build an oval (or any other non-circular fuselage) with lower wetted area or lower structural weight than a circular fuselage.

Tom.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:41 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 32):
All the Yellowstone airplanes are conventional wing/tube.

FYI, alot of people use Y1 and 737RS interchangeably on A.net.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 32):
Narrowbodies have a different problem re: CFRP barrels...the thickness you need to take the loads is way too thin to withstand ramp rash. At the moment, I'm pretty sure it's a toss up.

By the time Y1/737RS is launched in 3-4 years the barrels will certainly be CFRP... there is no going back for Boeing. MHI unvieled their 90-seat MRJ full scale cabin mock-up at Paris and it will be all-composite airframe. PW is talking to MHI about the GTF engine.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 32):
The 737 and 757 have the same width...why would the LCC's and the 757 replacements want a different width?

I pressume that he was referring to the fact that the 757 is uncomfortable on legacy long haul/trans atlantic flights (compared to twin-aisles) which LCCs haven't typically flown (yet).

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 32):
We will never see 2-2-2. There is no economic justification for it.

So why do Boeing, Airbus and Embraer tout their wider fuselage widths? The 787 could have easily been narrower, as could have the E-jets, and the XWB!!!!!!! As well as the A320. Additionally, why did Boeing do away with the double bubble fuse design on the 777 which is structurally and aerodynamically more efficient?

Furthermore, there is a direct head-to-head contest that has been won by the wider fuse E-jets over the narrower CRJs even though the CRJ is cheaper to purchase and operate and has shorter delivery times!!!

So we might see 2-2-2.  Big grin

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 32):
Not necessarily. Passenger comfort has nearly zero sales value. The vast majority of passengers have demonstrated time and time again that they only care about one thing...price.

Not so... otherwise the vast majority of pax would be flying LCCs.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 32):
That's the wrong comparison. It's certainly possible for a new-generation twin-aisle to be more efficient than an old-generation single-aisle but you need to compare like to like. It's physically impossible for a twin-aisle to be lighter or smaller than a single-aisle from the same technology.

No one has said lighter (but it could have a smaller cross-section if it is not circular!) Furthermore, the relevant discussion has been whether to have a single-aisle that is wider or a twin-aisle with "standard" width aisles which would be only marginally wider across (and possibly even have a smaller over all cross-section that is not circular). Additionally, with CFRP (and further design/material advances in the next few years) the weight difference would be absolutley negligible... anyhow.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 32):
It's not the frontal drag that's the problem. You can't build an oval (or any other non-circular fuselage) with lower wetted area or lower structural weight than a circular fuselage.

Ah... you better check your geometry again!  Wink
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Mon Aug 06, 2007 5:09 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 33):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 32):
We will never see 2-2-2. There is no economic justification for it.

So why do Boeing, Airbus and Embraer tout their wider fuselage widths? The 787 could have easily been narrower, as could have the E-jets, and the XWB!!!!!!! As well as the A320. Additionally, why did Boeing do away with the double bubble fuse design on the 777 which is structurally and aerodynamically more efficient?

Because fuselage width and seat layout aren't the same thing. I didn't say you won't see wider fuselages, I said you won't see 2-2-2. Aisle space doesn't make money. No airline is going to install more aisles than they need. Using the same technologies, there is no way to make a 2-2-2 more economical than a 3-3.

The 787 and A350 fuselage widths were very explicitely chosen to be able to just fit the maximum number of seats with no wasted space. If they were any narrower, their capacity would drop by about 10% and their CASM would go up accordingly.

Boeing got rid of the double-bubble on the 777 (and the 787) because they didn't need it. You only double-bubble if you have to...it's heavier and harder to build than the equivalent round fuselage.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 33):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 32):
Not necessarily. Passenger comfort has nearly zero sales value. The vast majority of passengers have demonstrated time and time again that they only care about one thing...price.

Not so... otherwise the vast majority of pax would be flying LCCs.

That would only be true if LCC's and legacy carriers flew the same routes. They don't. On routes where they do compete, LCC's either have the majority of the route or the legacy carriers have the same price on that route as the LCC's. Just watch AA's or CO's fares on any route they have in common with Southwest.

Tom.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Mon Aug 06, 2007 5:29 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 34):
Aisle space doesn't make money.

Then why are manufacturers making aisles wider?????

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 34):
Using the same technologies, there is no way to make a 2-2-2 more economical than a 3-3.

It can be made virtually equivalent but, moreover, it doesn't even have to be... the wider fuse E-jets are a perfect example of wider costing more but selling more!

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 34):
The 787 and A350 fuselage widths were very explicitely chosen to be able to just fit the maximum number of seats with no wasted space.

Not so!!!! They are designed with wider seats and wider aisles.... and according to you that is wasted, uneconomic space! Big grin

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 34):
it's heavier and harder to build than the equivalent round fuselage.

No its not!!!! I guess that is why Embraer chose the double bubble... NOT!! Or just about every aircraft, including the A380, ever! Double-bubble is the lightest design!!!! That is basic airframe design 101.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 34):
legacy carriers have the same price on that route as the LCC's. Just watch AA's or CO's fares on any route they have in common with Southwest.

No they don't... they only have some seats at the same price!
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:57 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 32):
Only if the engines are mounted as they are on the current 737. That is a long way from being assured.

hahah whatever WN orders will be a conventional tube & wing with podded engines below the wings as seen 50years ago, and proven every minute since then. Whatever WN orders will be the smallest version of the 737RS program for the majority of airlines.

Boeing will make compromises for other airlines on this model, but in the end its WN or nothing as far too many airlines are more than willing to say "give me 200 of whatever they ordered so long as I get about the same price".

So we are going to see a Airplane nearly the size of the 737-800 for floor size (149Y for WN, whatever 737-800 config others use). Going to switch to containers for cargo/bags for quicker turn times. Going to have a much larger fuselage to both increase the cargo, and to decrease the turn times by allowing either a twin aisle or a wide single.

The argument to build a 737-700 sized plane is thats what WN has always ordered... Its false, and in fact quite stupid. One notes that the 737-200 they started with is NOT the size of the 737-700. One also might note that the 737-500 is NOT one of WN's better loved planes, and I'm sure they now regret ever asking boeing for it. Couple that with the history that the 737 every time its gotten a major revision the smallest "economical" size has gone up, it only makes sense with the current 737-700 Vs 737-800 data that Boeing will NOT make a 737-700 sized 737RS unless its the largest member of a 5Y sub-type. It would at best be the 737-600 of the 737RS era if they made a 737-700 sized 6Y 737RS.

More over the economics of a Plane that would have to go from 737-700 in size, to 757-200 or larger would be terrible as something would either be way too shrunk or way too stretched.


On a OMG insane front, a larger version could be used by WN to open up native international routes with 199Y. I don't expect it, but its more likely than WN ordering another 137Y plane after the 737RS is announced.
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:44 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 35):
Then why are manufacturers making aisles wider?????

The manufacturer's actually don't. WN's seats may not be the same seats as HP's seats or AS's seats. There are all kinds of seats available out there for an airline to chose from. So its the airline's choice on what type of seats to use. Business 101. You said so yourself, sir:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 35):
They are designed with wider seats...

Keyword: wider seats. Airframe manufacturers don't build the seats. Again, see below:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 32):
A & B don't set the seat or aisle width. Airlines do. And the passengers have demonstrated time and again that they value price over comfort.

 checkmark   checkmark  Its all about airline configs.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:39 am

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 37):
The manufacturer's actually don't. WN's seats may not be the same seats as HP's seats or AS's seats. There are all kinds of seats available out there for an airline to chose from.

Sorry but you're absolutely wrong! WNs seat width is the same width as every single other 737 operator... 17" or 17.2 "!!! You should visit a few airline websites - you might learn something!!

But anyhow, we have been talking about the new build and design of aircraft - specifically Y!/737RS!!! Your post has no relevance to the discussion about new airframe widths!

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 37):
Keyword: wider seats. Airframe manufacturers don't build the seats.

Duh!!! I never said thay did!!! But if you knew just a little about airframe design then you would (perhaps) realize that virtually most aircraft were designed around the standard 17" seat width!!

And, as I already pointed out a few times... new aircraft are now designed for min of seats 18" or wider!!! The E-jets most prominent with 18.25" but also the defunct FD728/928, the hopeful CSeries, and the 787 and A350XWB!

So that is what the discussion has been about... is Boeing going to increase the width of Y1/737RS compared to the 737NG in order to have wider seats, a wider aisle, both or two aisles!!
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5257
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:02 pm

Quoting TSS (Thread starter):
Is the janitor at P&W's test facility getting tired of sweeping up bits of shattered gearboxes, or are the GTF test engines performing as well as expected?

It seems P&W and partner MTU are not only concerned about lowering fuel burn, they're also busying themselves with something else.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...rotating-fan-to-cut-emissions.html

Quote:
"The Munich-based engine manufacturer has entered a partnership with its associate research group Bauhaus Luftfahrt to engage in the three-phase Clean Air Engine project.

This programme, known by the acronym "Claire", will be centred on the geared turbofan, which is designed to allow the different parts of the engine to rotate at their individual optimum speeds.

Pratt & Whitney, which co-operates with MTU on powerplant manufacture, has been assembling a geared-fan demonstrator that will enter a test regime later this year.

The Claire programme will also take advantage of MTU's previously developed contra-rotating fan that would be fitted to the geared assembly. Eventually this mechanism would also include a recuperator to improve efficiency further."
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:44 pm

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 38):
Sorry but you're absolutely wrong! WNs seat width is the same width as every single other 737 operator... 17" or 17.2 "!!! You should visit a few airline websites - you might learn something!!

WN's 733 seats vs. HP's 733 seats: Totally different widths give or take an inch or two. I've worked for both airlines, I should know. I've found HP's seats much more comfortable than WN's after working for both carriers.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 38):
Boeing going to increase the width of Y1/737RS compared to the 737NG in order to have wider seats, a wider aisle, both or two aisles!!

I dont think that will happen. As others have stated before: the pax have proven to airlines that they are more interested in low airfares than pax comfort. Bottom line.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 38):
Duh!!! I never said thay did!!! But if you knew just a little about airframe design then you would (perhaps) realize that virtually most aircraft were designed around the standard 17" seat width!!

You didnt finish what I added in the rest of my post, obviously. Read between the lines, sir.  sarcastic 
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:03 pm

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 40):
WN's 733 seats vs. HP's 733 seats: Totally different widths give or take an inch or two.

Buddy, you are wrong!!!

And for someone who says that they've worked for both airlines that it is not impressive at all! I would have guessed that you were perhaps at first joking but you've stated your erroneous claim twice now!!

Furthermore, if you use some logic for a minute you would realize that it is impossible for there to be "Totally different widths give or take an inch or two" since that would reduce the aisle between 6" and 12".

That is totally laughable... a 737 aisle that is up to 8" narrower than even a CRJ's narrow aisle!!!!

Just imagine it... 737 pax having to lug out their roll-aboards at waist height because they don't fit the aisle!! Big grin

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 40):
I dont think that will happen. As others have stated before: the pax have proven to airlines that they are more interested in low airfares than pax comfort. Bottom line.

It may and it might not.... there is still lots of time before any decision is made.

However, you are wrong about the bottom line! People keep parroting that fallacy of "wasted space" pax comfort but never once answer why then is it that airframers are designing their aircraft with so much pax comfort "wasted space"?

Explain that!!
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:10 pm

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 35):
Then why are manufacturers making aisles wider?????

They're not. They're making the fuselage wider. Both Boeing and Airbus have marketed this (correctly) as "You can have a wider aisle!" The majority of airlines have said, "Yes, we can, but we'd rather stick in that extra seat."

It's not a coincidence that you can get 2-4-2 into a 787 comfortably or 3-3-3 if you squeeze...Boeing did that on purpose. Same phenomenon on the A350XWB.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 35):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 34):
The 787 and A350 fuselage widths were very explicitely chosen to be able to just fit the maximum number of seats with no wasted space.

Not so!!!! They are designed with wider seats and wider aisles.... and according to you that is wasted, uneconomic space!

It is wasted, uneconomic space, which is why you see the purchasers fitting economy cabins that are more tightly packed than the concepts that A & B were marketing.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 35):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 34):
it's heavier and harder to build than the equivalent round fuselage.

No its not!!!! I guess that is why Embraer chose the double bubble... NOT!! Or just about every aircraft, including the A380, ever! Double-bubble is the lightest design!!!! That is basic airframe design 101.

As I said, you use double bubble when you have to (small diameters). The A380 isn't a double bubble (it's a modified ellipse). Since you have clearly discovered some principle of structural engineering that has escaped every major airframe manufacturer for decades, would you care to share how a double bubble is lighter and/or easier to build than an equivalent round?

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 41):
However, you are wrong about the bottom line! People keep parroting that fallacy of "wasted space" pax comfort but never once answer why then is it that airframers are designing their aircraft with so much pax comfort "wasted space"?

Explain that!!

Airframers don't select the production interiors, as has been stated several times in this thread. That is the explanation. That you, apparently, choose not to accept it is a different issue. This situation has been going on since the Stratoliner...the OEM's market all this space that can be used for non-revenue passenger nicities and the airlines fill them with revenue seats.

Tom.
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:28 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 36):
hahah whatever WN orders will be a conventional tube & wing with podded engines below the wings as seen 50years ago, and proven every minute since then. Whatever WN orders will be the smallest version of the 737RS program for the majority of airlines.

I think the question with Boeing and Airbus at this moment is wether to go with 1 or 2 narrowbody types.

As in other threads mentioned probably ~100-160 seats Y1a aircraft and a ~ 150-250 seat Y1b aircraft to prevent heavy small and payload/range restricted large versions of a single design like happened on the A320 and 737.

Now low cost carriers and most others seem to generally require ~150 seat aircraft. Conventional widom points towards a kind of new 787 like NB: http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/3507525

But what if a 2-3 seat 150 seater offers significantly less frontal area / drag / weight and lower fuel consumption using the same technology? Low cost airline don't have the ambition to expand into larger versions benefitting from commonality.. http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/3513052


GTF powered 2-3 cabin 110-165 seater
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:07 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 42):
They're not. They're making the fuselage wider. Both Boeing and Airbus have marketed this (correctly) as "You can have a wider aisle!" The majority of airlines have said, "Yes, we can, but we'd rather stick in that extra seat."

It's not a coincidence that you can get 2-4-2 into a 787 comfortably or 3-3-3 if you squeeze...Boeing did that on purpose. Same phenomenon on the A350XWB.

They are!!!! Buddy, at least use some FACTS and not meaningless comments that are void of context!!!!! You really don't know what you are talking about!!!

In your own words...

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 42):
It is wasted, uneconomic space

So... why then is the 787 wider than the A330... and the A350XWB wider than both!!!!!! Yet...ALL 3 aircraft "can get 2-4-2" "comfortably"... "or 3-3-3 if you squeeze".

Yes, all 3 models have the same cross-section seating arrangements.... but different widths!!!

So why would Boeing design the 787 to have more "wasted, uneconomic space" than the A330, and Airbus design the A350 to have even more "wasted, uneconomic space" than both????

Gee, I wonder... perhaps it is because the manufacturers are designing planes to have a bit more pax comfort - as I have been presenting with facts,,, like the A320 is wider than the 737/757... and the E-jets are wider than the CRJs!!!!! And the CSeries would have even wider aisles and seats than all previous narrowbodies!!!! According to you all that "wasted, uneconomic space" that has nothing to do with pax comfort... sure, right!!!

Obviously you have never... EVER read any press release or industry article on any of these aircraft!!

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 42):
As I said, you use double bubble when you have to (small diameters).

Oh, so that is why the latest large diameter aircraft design... the A350 XWB... is using a double-bubble and not a circular fuselage!!!  Big grin  Big grin

Furthermore, that is NOT what you said originally!! What you stated (incorrectly) was...

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 32):
You can't build an oval (or any other non-circular fuselage) with lower wetted area or lower structural weight than a circular fuselage.

The above being a direct contradiction to your recent reply 32!!

Furthermore... that comment rules out the 787... in addition to the 747 and A380 as having lower wetted area or strutural weight than if they had a circular fuselage!!! NOT!!!!  Big grin  Big grin

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 42):
Airframers don't select the production interiors, as has been stated several times in this thread. That is the explanation. That you, apparently, choose not to accept it is a different issue. This situation has been going on since the Stratoliner...the OEM's market all this space that can be used for non-revenue passenger nicities and the airlines fill them with revenue seats.

My question truly went right over your head!

But perhaps finally you'll understand (hopefully) that the extra space in an A320 over the 737, E-jet over the CRJ and the 787 over the A330... and the A350 XWB over both the A330 and 787, CANNOT be used by "the airlines to fill them with revenue seats" but to provide more pax comfort!
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:15 pm

A320 family planes offer the option of 3+3 at 18" seat width and a "normal" aisle or 3+3 at 17" width (matching the 737) and a 6" wider aisle. It has been my experience that airlines choose 18", which I find more important then the wider aisle, though I continue to hope the 737RS and A320RS will have both 18" seats and a 6" wider aisle.  Smile

In general, all 737s have 17" wide seats, though thinner armrests could add a few tenths.
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:39 pm

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 41):
Buddy, you are wrong!!!

And for someone who says that they've worked for both airlines that it is not impressive at all! I would have guessed that you were perhaps at first joking but you've stated your erroneous claim twice now!!

Furthermore, if you use some logic for a minute you would realize that it is impossible for there to be "Totally different widths give or take an inch or two" since that would reduce the aisle between 6" and 12".

That is totally laughable... a 737 aisle that is up to 8" narrower than even a CRJ's narrow aisle!!!!

Just imagine it... 737 pax having to lug out their roll-aboards at waist height because they don't fit the aisle!!

Oh! Okay....then my cousin's husband who was one of the seat managers at Boeing (now with the F.A.A.) is wrong. Ok, I'll take your word for it.  sarcastic  And oh, by the way....I wasn't trying to impress you. I was telling you FACTS. You went jiggy on that I guess....
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:44 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
And I am not sure that 2+2+2 offers anything over 3+3 with an aisle 4" wider.

No middle seat - that is a biggie, particularly if you want to run with load factors in the 85%+ range (which I am convinced will be the norm).

Faster embark/disembark times (which are becoming as important to AA, DL, NW as it is for NW). The delays in boarding/deplaning is not only due to ppl stopping in the isles to put their bags up. It is also due to the need for up to two ppl to get up for a person to take a window seat.

Easier access to luggage bins, particularly if you have foru rows of bins (the center row may need to alternate left/right depending on how wide the fuselage is.

Ability to carry LD3s with a fuselage that wide and get rid of things like olde A300s.

More airy cabin ("feeling" of spaciousness).

So planty of things that appeal to both passangers and airlines.

The downside? Slightly greater drag and weight. Inneficient for anything much smaller than 150 seats.

I'd love to see 120, 150, 200, 250, both in regular and LR variants. Regular optimized for routes up to 2000nm, LR for 3000nm.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:48 am

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 48):
Faster embark/disembark times (which are becoming as important to AA, DL, NW as it is for NW). The delays in boarding/deplaning is not only due to ppl stopping in the isles to put their bags up. It is also due to the need for up to two ppl to get up for a person to take a window seat.

You can take care of that by boarding WILMA-style (Window, then Middle and then Aisle) like UA now does.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 48):
Ability to carry LD3s with a fuselage that wide and get rid of things like olde A300s.

I should think an LD3 would fit in a slightly wider single-aisle narrowbody?
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4919
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Boeing Y1 Rumor And Speculation

Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:55 am

Even if the 737RS uses a 2-2-2 layout, I don't think that center overhead bins would really be very important. At least airlines should have the option whether to include them or not. On the 787, airlines have the option not to include center bins in the premium cabin.

If a 2-2-2 layout is used, the outer bins should be large pivot bins like on the 787. If center bins are used, the center bins will have to be smaller than what the 787 will offer due to the narrower fuselage.
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky