keesje wrote:Frankly I've not seen much more substantiation of a twin aisle MoM efficiency than some skewed seatcount comparisons and "Boeing said so" and some people said they liked the idea. Please point out the concrete numbers..
The ones I was thinking of were the ones in replies 116, 131, 132 and related follow-ons in this thread.
keesje wrote:I like to point out that the SonicCruiser, 787-3, 2011 NSA, 737-7, 737-9 and 747-8 were programs declared superior, launched, promoted, defended and evaporated in silence. Some were fairy tails..
Please point out which ones of these are fairy tales. The 737-9 and the 747-8 exist in real actual airplane form with real actual customers paying real actual money to buy them. The others were design proposals advanced enough to present to customers and in some cases secure actual orders. None were imaginary.
Interesting also that the 737-7 has more orders than the A330-800 and you aren't calling out the A300-800 as being a fairy tale.
We shall now all see if enzo011 chides your post for being snarky or not. So far, he's been pretty quiet on that front, only choosing to label my posts as being snarky when he has others to choose from too. I suppose I should feel special?
keesje wrote:A twin aisle can IMO only be efficient above a certain payload-range threshold. At this stage Boeing is not comfortable below that threshold and below is a a much bigger segment than above. Usually market logic dictates what happens. Regardless of what's been said before. Boeing can't throw the towel around 200 seats transcon range.
Clearly the totality of the market for single aisle commercial transports is bigger than the market for the smallest satisfactory twin aisle, so this is not a profound revelation (™). Not sure why you raise it. The real question in a thread titled "Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept" is whether or not Boeing can make a successful program based on this smallest satisfactory twin aisle. As above I see the challenges, but I'm pretty open minded and quite interested to see if the program ends up being launched or not.
enzo011 wrote:I will say again, Revelation changed what keesje wrote and reacted to it. Keesje said getting the economics to work on the MOM is a fairytale, not that the MOM is a fairytale. He posted that keesje thought the MOM is a fairytale, how are those two things the same?
They are exactly the same if you understand that the MOM won't exist if it has broken economics, because Boeing will not launch a MOM project that has broken economics, either they work or the program won't get launched. Most of us do understand that. This isn't like the 787 days where they were doing moon shots. They know the program has a very small window to hit and if it doesn't hit it, it won't be launched.