Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:56 pm

c933103 wrote:
Polot wrote:
WIederling wrote:
A proposed shorter A330-100 ( ~ A300 capacity ) would have been +6% more fuel efficient on typical A300 routes.

And yet Airbus couldn't get enough interest to launch the plane. Being 6% more fuel efficient than an older generation plane while having the structure for long range becomes less impressive if an optimized plane (with the same tech level as the long range shrink or whatever) is say 15-20% better than the older plane.

The difference in using A321s versus the proposed A331 for most missions killed the proposal. If you didn't need the range using A321s was far superior. If you needed the range A332/A333s were better. Boeing (and to a slightly lesser extent Airbus) are looking at ways to narrow the gap for larger than 737-10/A321 aircraft without having to resort exclusivity to range to build its business case.

Well, MoM is not exactly a short ranged plane.... However if a further shrink of 330 is to occur it would be like the third shrunk of the model...
I wonder if it is possible for them to reuse some components from A310.


It started out with the A300, so the A330-300 is a stretch.

Airbus could do a A300 sized frame, were only the diameter of the tube is common to the A330 or A300.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:00 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
I found this quote particularly interesting:

Details are still few and far between, but Boeing has talked to 57 potential customers.

One such airline, Indian low-cost operator SpiceJet, said it was very interested in the new jet to relieve airport congestion and open new routes from South Asia.

“We have 1.3 billion people in our country, they need to travel to different parts of the world and they don’t necessarily need to travel through the hubs that have been created by several airlines on both sides of our country,” said SpiceJet CEO Ajay Singh.


http://www.wtma.com/news/world-gets-fir ... oeing-797/

If ULCC's think this works for them then those 4,000-plane projections start to look more realistic.



Is that not somewhat contrary to the recent "market research" that indicated airlines were not after size, but rather range?

Which I guess, would highlight just how difficult it is to pin down exactly what the final aircraft need to do. I suppose a two model line, with the stretch sacrificing range is the most obvious way to go with it.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:23 pm

airmagnac wrote:
Love the "Baseline configuration study" slide...
"Look, everything is all new : the aerostructures, the systems, the engines and the production system.
And we're using awesome sounding words like "5th generation, hybrid, future system and 2nd Century" to make it sound cool without providing you any idea of what it actually means => so be excited ! we're giving you... (roll drums).... Crossover Economics !

...but we're still re-using 777/787 stuff 'cause it's "proven". So actually it's not all that new.... => don't get too worried, it'll work !

Ahhh, powerpoint slides...such an art :)
<insert any Dilbert strip with "powerpoint presentation" theme here>

At least the wikipedia figure representing product development phases gives a first hard date for EIS. Still 6-7 years of development time though


Yes, there is hardly any information on the new plane except it is a twin engine. Apparently they have not yet reached a decision whether it is a single or twin aisle.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2989
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:00 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
I found this quote particularly interesting:

Details are still few and far between, but Boeing has talked to 57 potential customers.

One such airline, Indian low-cost operator SpiceJet, said it was very interested in the new jet to relieve airport congestion and open new routes from South Asia.

“We have 1.3 billion people in our country, they need to travel to different parts of the world and they don’t necessarily need to travel through the hubs that have been created by several airlines on both sides of our country,” said SpiceJet CEO Ajay Singh.


http://www.wtma.com/news/world-gets-fir ... oeing-797/

If ULCC's think this works for them then those 4,000-plane projections start to look more realistic.


Is that not somewhat contrary to the recent "market research" that indicated airlines were not after size, but rather range?

Which I guess, would highlight just how difficult it is to pin down exactly what the final aircraft need to do. I suppose a two model line, with the stretch sacrificing range is the most obvious way to go with it.


SpiceJet - and other Indian carriers - would probably want this plane for range as much as size. Look at 4500nm from Indian airports:

Image
Image
Image

...that opens up pretty much all of India to nearly all of Europe/Asia/Africa. Easily links secondary cities like MAA/CCU/BLR to capitals and links BOM/DEL with European secondaries. 8hr flights on a highly-efficient plane should be a good sweet spot for longhaul LCC ops.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:38 pm

Yes, all nice but the big topics are not the size or the range, the problem lies with the demands of the airline that are hugely contra-dictionary.

1. highly economic vs. affordable
2. low fuel burn vs. must fit in existing gates (limits wing span or means folding wings)
3. new production methods vs. high output at a low price
4. single aisle vs. twin aisle

Not easy at all, because in the end the airline wishes cover a market from the A321LR over the 757, 767 up to older lower MTOW A330s.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7162
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:15 pm

According to this, it is not so much an oval fuselage rather a compound cross-section.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... an-438512/

Quote:
"Perhaps the most intriguing design aspect of the NMA is the fuselage geometry. Boeing's early design studies have focused on optimising the cross-section to accommodate passengers, at the expense of creating space below-deck to carry bulk cargo pallets or containers.

The result is a hybrid cross-section for the fuselage, blending the passenger comfort of a twin-aisle on the main deck and the cargo compartment of a single-aisle below deck.

'It is a geometry that enables single aisle economics and twin-aisle comfort,' says Delaney."



Image
http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/geta ... emid=70920
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:34 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
SpiceJet - and other Indian carriers - would probably want this plane for range as much as size. Look at 4500nm from Indian airports:

...that opens up pretty much all of India to nearly all of Europe/Asia/Africa. Easily links secondary cities like MAA/CCU/BLR to capitals and links BOM/DEL with European secondaries. 8hr flights on a highly-efficient plane should be a good sweet spot for longhaul LCC ops.


True, I guess its possible they could look to operate longhaul LCC.

How big would that market be?
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:40 pm

Devilfish wrote:

'It is a geometry that enables single aisle economics and twin-aisle comfort,' says Delaney."



I'd love to see the maths behind that assertion!
 
User avatar
kelvin933
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:20 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:51 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Devilfish wrote:

'It is a geometry that enables single aisle economics and twin-aisle comfort,' says Delaney."



I'd love to see the maths behind that assertion!

Delaney has discovered the ≈ symbol.
Single aisle economics ≈ NMA economics
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2942
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:53 pm

Does this mean it is a two aisle aircraft?
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:56 pm

kelvin933 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Devilfish wrote:

'It is a geometry that enables single aisle economics and twin-aisle comfort,' says Delaney."



I'd love to see the maths behind that assertion!

Delaney has discovered the ≈ symbol.
Single aisle economics ≈ NMA economics


Maybe we're missing the *.


*±10%

:D
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:00 pm

Well the 707 also was a single aisle, so this is easy....

Imho it only makes sense if it is a 7 abreast design with rather small aisles and probably about or less than 17.5" seats. A 8 abreast seating would be hard pressed to get the luggage into LD3-45s for a given fuselage length.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2989
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:04 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
True, I guess its possible they could look to operate longhaul LCC.

How big would that market be?


That depends. Per Boeing 2017 CMO, Europe-SouthAsia will see 176bn RPK's in 2036. That's only 1/4 of Europe-ME, however, so the CMO builds in an assumption that much/most of the market will fly over ME hubs. But India alone will be several times bigger than the whole ME economy by then.

If we instead assume that SpiceJet/IndiGo/Vistara take over more the ME3 flying then Europe-SouthAsia RPK's could probably hit 300bn annually.
Assuming 8hrs daily on the route (the residual usage being local/regional), 800km/h cruise, 220pax/plane, and 85% LF, that's a market for up to 700 NMA's.
And that's just for Europe-SouthAsia. Probably double that potential for Asia/ME/Africa ex SouthAsia.
NMA wouldn't take all of those markets but would probably be the preferred choice on all but a few <8hr routes.
Last edited by Matt6461 on Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:05 pm

United787 wrote:
Does this mean it is a two aisle aircraft?

#407 is not ambiguous:

The result is a hybrid cross-section for the fuselage, blending the passenger comfort of a twin-aisle on the main deck and the cargo compartment of a single-aisle below deck.

'It is a geometry that enables single aisle economics and twin-aisle comfort,' says Delaney.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2942
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:48 pm

Revelation wrote:
United787 wrote:
Does this mean it is a two aisle aircraft?

#407 is not ambiguous:

The result is a hybrid cross-section for the fuselage, blending the passenger comfort of a twin-aisle on the main deck and the cargo compartment of a single-aisle below deck.

'It is a geometry that enables single aisle economics and twin-aisle comfort,' says Delaney.


I saw that and read the "comfort" as meaning it will feel like it is twin-aisle but won't really be... something about it seemed funny, maybe I am just being skeptical.

So, can we assume this will be a 2-3-2? What else would it be? If that is the case, is this really a 763 replacement... since the 787 really never was????
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27308
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:53 pm

United787 wrote:
I saw that and read the "comfort" as meaning it will feel like it is twin-aisle but won't really be... something about it seemed funny, maybe I am just being skeptical. So, can we assume this will be a 2-3-2? What else would it be? If that is the case, is this really a 763 replacement... since the 787 really never was????


I think we're going to see a re-tread of the 7E7 - NMA will launch showcasing a "comfort" 3+3 configuration using wide seats and wide aisles with an optional "economic" configuration at 2+3+2 with 17" seats and 19" aisles. The latter will be what every customer orders.
Last edited by Stitch on Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:56 pm, edited 4 times in total.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 608
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:55 pm

Hmm surprised about the rumor of a small wide body. I figured this would be a long narrow body. Not surprised they are utilizing all they learned from the 787 on this project. The 787 may not look financially successful on the books. But its costs provided knowledge for the 737 max and 777x and now 797.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2867
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:03 pm

It sounds something like a 170"H by 190"ish Wide Fuselage 2x3x2 with an LD3-45 or something slightly larger in the belly.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:10 pm

I can see why B is launching the 737 Max-10 now and taking firm orders. There is nothing else to show...This MoM or 797 is still in the Power-Point slides stage of development.

If you are still doing trade-studies on fuselage cross section, figuring out how to build the aircraft and making all three engine makers jump at your RFI's...you are a long way off from an aircraft launch. Talk to us when there is aircraft dimensions, weights, an engine and assembly location. Until then, the Max-10 landing gear is more interesting.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:30 pm

I am in the sceptics' camp as well regarding the meaning of the "the passenger comfort of a twin-aisle on the main deck" statement. It could mean anything. It might mean they squeezed 1in more width per seat. Or half... or it could mean that they have 2+3+2 config and two aisles.

This is quite ridiculous at this stage. The key issue is if you can make it have small fuel consumption, cheap to construct, and have more space than the A321s. I still consider it completely unproven that such a design exists, let alone be commercial feasible.

So it looks like I'm forced to wait more time to see what they will do in the end.
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1424
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:55 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
I can see why B is launching the 737 Max-10 now and taking firm orders. There is nothing else to show...This MoM or 797 is still in the Power-Point slides stage of development.

If you are still doing trade-studies on fuselage cross section, figuring out how to build the aircraft and making all three engine makers jump at your RFI's...you are a long way off from an aircraft launch. Talk to us when there is aircraft dimensions, weights, an engine and assembly location. Until then, the Max-10 landing gear is more interesting.


I'm pretty sure most people here would love to be apprised of things every step of the way.

"Launch" is 1-2 years off per the slides you don't want to look at, if one interprets the "Potential NMA Schedule" as being linear.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:00 pm

morrisond wrote:
It sounds something like a 170"H by 190"ish Wide Fuselage 2x3x2 with an LD3-45 or something slightly larger in the belly.


I´d say around 180" wide and 160-165" high.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4653
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:02 pm

From the statement I think it would be something like MC21 diameter + 10 inch width...(i.e. 170inch-ish...) (although it can also go up to 180/186 which is 767's width ...)
And I thought from a while ago it was already pretty clear that MoM would be twin aisle, from the way how people are talking about that single aisle economy in a twin aisle plane... I don't feel the need of being surprised by it at the moment...
AirlineCritic wrote:
I am in the sceptics' camp as well regarding the meaning of the "the passenger comfort of a twin-aisle on the main deck" statement. It could mean anything. It might mean they squeezed 1in more width per seat. Or half... or it could mean that they have 2+3+2 config and two aisles.

This is quite ridiculous at this stage. The key issue is if you can make it have small fuel consumption, cheap to construct, and have more space than the A321s. I still consider it completely unproven that such a design exists, let alone be commercial feasible.

So it looks like I'm forced to wait more time to see what they will do in the end.

It just mean the comfort of having the choice of which aisle to go if you're sitting in the middle.
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
(≧▽≦) Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
(≧▽≦) Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4653
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:22 pm

https://www.google.com/patents/US20030062449
The content from this 2001 patent, titled "Twin aisle small airplane" seems to fit what Boeing is looking for rather well, except the patent is for <200 seats class. Interestingly the patent from 2001 also mentioned the term "Middle of the Market"
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
(≧▽≦) Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
(≧▽≦) Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
User avatar
deltadawg
Posts: 1014
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 2:56 am

Boeing Unveils Plans for 797 Announcement?

Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:39 pm

Just got back home from traveling today and googled to see what news from Paris and the article below popped up. Does anyone know if Boeing has indeed announced plans for a 797? I think most aviation folks expect it but I have heard nothing till this article.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/06/ ... 497973560/
GO Dawgs, Sic' em, woof woof woof
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:51 pm

I wonder if they are maybe contemplating multiple fuselage profiles like 757/767 family. Maybe a stretch, but you can imagine why they'd want to provide scant details now as they are pushing 737-10 sales now.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7162
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:05 am

According to study....."more range but not much more capacity"..... :spin:

http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show- ... needed-nma

Quote:
"What airlines are asking Boeing and Airbus in the survey puts the OEMs in a difficult position: The vast majority of respondents (90%) want fewer than 250 seats in a two-class configuration and up to 5,000-nm range (76%). A significant percentage of respondents (24%) want even more than the 5,000 nm. Two-thirds of potential future operators also expect a composite fuselage and composite wings. In other words, they would like an aircraft that is not too different in size from today’s narrowbody families but has a lot more range."
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1263
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:07 am

Amiga500 wrote:
Devilfish wrote:

'It is a geometry that enables single aisle economics and twin-aisle comfort,' says Delaney."



I'd love to see the maths behind that assertion!


A lot of people seem to read "single aisle economics" as meaning "lower CASM at equivalent stage lengths than the A321 NEO."

The CASM can be higher than the A321 NEO but still be closer to single aisle economics than traditional wide-body economics. Thus, it would be generally fair to talk about single-aisle economics.

The presumption is if it gets close enough to single aisle economics, but does some other things to add value to make up the difference, it has a market niche.

The question right now is what configuration maximizes the size of the niche and if Boeing can make more money with a product filling that niche than without (meaning among other points, that Boeing is not ignorant of the fact a 797 would steal some 787 sales).

Boeing themselves aren't convinced on the 2nd question yet, and the main focus is still on the first question.

QuarkFly wrote:
I can see why B is launching the 737 Max-10 now and taking firm orders. There is nothing else to show...This MoM or 797 is still in the Power-Point slides stage of development.


They're launching the 737 Max-10 now because if they're going to respond to the A321 in the near term, soon is better than later. They definitely aren't going to get more Max-10 sales by waiting, and they've settled on a configuration, so it's time to launch it.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:25 am

Is 2-2-2 (ala 7J7) completely out of the question?
 
User avatar
FBWFTW
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 5:09 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:22 am

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:

John Leahy and his surrogates at Airbus want to convince the market that a bigger narrowbody is the only way to go because he has constraints and wants to continue to sell the A320neo family. His statements so far seem more based in anecdotes and emotions than sound engineering judgement, but that is just my opinion. He is a salesman.


Yes, either anecdotes and emotions, or the fact he buried both the 757 and 767 with the A321 and A330 in this segment over the last 20 years.. :scratchchin:

Late to the party, but sick burn Keesje! Leahy would be proud of you lol!
Avgeek & Airbus fan
Flown-712 722 732/5/8/9 741 752 762/3ER, L10, DC8/9/10 MD88 E75/90 A320/21 A332/3
Fav Plane(s) A330-243/L10
Fav Airlines-B6/HA
Favorite engine-RR/PW
Favorite Route-BOS-HNL
https://my.flightradar24.com/FBWFTW#
 
astuteman
Posts: 7184
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:42 am

Devilfish wrote:
According to study....."more range but not much more capacity"..... :spin:

http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show- ... needed-nma

Quote:
"What airlines are asking Boeing and Airbus in the survey puts the OEMs in a difficult position: The vast majority of respondents (90%) want fewer than 250 seats in a two-class configuration and up to 5,000-nm range (76%). A significant percentage of respondents (24%) want even more than the 5,000 nm. Two-thirds of potential future operators also expect a composite fuselage and composite wings. In other words, they would like an aircraft that is not too different in size from today’s narrowbody families but has a lot more range."


I linked this article myself earlier on, but re-reading it, I'm am once again struck by the implication that the 60/40 split in market opinion towards the Boeing MOM vs an A322NEO is driven by the range of the MOM proposal, not its capacity (although the clue IS in the title :) ).

The A321neo and its long-range (LR) version seem to have about the right size for most operators, and being too small is not as serious a problem as being too big. On the other hand, the survey shows that Airbus is not there yet, in particular as far as range is concerned. More work needs to be done on range, as the A321LR as currently proposed reaches only slightly over 4,000 nm. As part of the A321neo "plus-plus" project (part of a broader initiative to modernize the A320neo family), more capacity is under consideration, but more importantly, more range has to be designed into the aircraft.


The statement about the A321NEO having "about the right size for most operators" passed me by 1st time around.
So much for speed reading skills :)

Rgds
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:50 am

astuteman wrote:
Devilfish wrote:
According to study....."more range but not much more capacity"..... :spin:

http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show- ... needed-nma

Quote:
"What airlines are asking Boeing and Airbus in the survey puts the OEMs in a difficult position: The vast majority of respondents (90%) want fewer than 250 seats in a two-class configuration and up to 5,000-nm range (76%). A significant percentage of respondents (24%) want even more than the 5,000 nm. Two-thirds of potential future operators also expect a composite fuselage and composite wings. In other words, they would like an aircraft that is not too different in size from today’s narrowbody families but has a lot more range."


I linked this article myself earlier on, but re-reading it, I'm am once again struck by the implication that the 60/40 split in market opinion towards the Boeing MOM vs an A322NEO is driven by the range of the MOM proposal, not its capacity (although the clue IS in the title :) ).

The A321neo and its long-range (LR) version seem to have about the right size for most operators, and being too small is not as serious a problem as being too big. On the other hand, the survey shows that Airbus is not there yet, in particular as far as range is concerned. More work needs to be done on range, as the A321LR as currently proposed reaches only slightly over 4,000 nm. As part of the A321neo "plus-plus" project (part of a broader initiative to modernize the A320neo family), more capacity is under consideration, but more importantly, more range has to be designed into the aircraft.


The statement about the A321NEO having "about the right size for most operators" passed me by 1st time around.
So much for speed reading skills :)

Rgds


You're not the only one it seems. I missed that too! Thanks for drawing my attention to it!
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1424
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:58 pm

So the above market opinion seems to match what 757s eventually became unique for... a bit bigger, but longer legs.

797, if that's what they call it, will be a beast of a freighter at this rate. They'll be delivering drywall in it, just because it can.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:42 pm

ssteve wrote:
So the above market opinion seems to match what 757s eventually became unique for... a bit bigger, but longer legs.

797, if that's what they call it, will be a beast of a freighter at this rate. They'll be delivering drywall in it, just because it can.


Wide body, rather short, only one row of a few LD3-45 makes a beast of freighter?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:38 pm

.. an advanced way to tell you're settling for the Airbus AKH containers you dismissed for 25 years..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2728
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:42 pm

c933103 wrote:
https://www.google.com/patents/US20030062449
The content from this 2001 patent, titled "Twin aisle small airplane" seems to fit what Boeing is looking for rather well, except the patent is for <200 seats class. Interestingly the patent from 2001 also mentioned the term "Middle of the Market"



That's the " Guppy" concept that was floating around.

it's an interesting design, especially the C-17 style T tail design :)
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:48 pm

keesje wrote:
.. an advanced way to tell you're settling for the Airbus AKH containers you dismissed for 25 years..


Nice to see that you are alive. With all the order announcements at Paris, I would have expected you to be offering much more commentary.

I think cargo containers will be designed around what a 797 can carry and that the plane won't be designed around what cargo containers exist today. Airlines will probably have to add cost of new containers to their overall assessment when deciding where or not to buy a 797
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:54 pm

A twin-aisle with a narrowbody cargo compartment doesn't sound like a good freighter to me either.

But what I'm struggling to understand more, is what makes a 2-3-2 Y-configuration so much better than a 3-3 economically? I agree it would be better for the pax - more comfortable, more spacious, but the airlines' priority number 1 is economics. Adding just 1 row of seats at the expense of another aisle doesn't seem like that good of an idea. I realize there's advanced calculations involved in this, far beyond my capabilities. Could someone explain it in layman's terms?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27308
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:56 pm

keesje wrote:
.. an advanced way to tell you're settling for the Airbus AKH containers you dismissed for 25 years..


Little hard to "dismiss" something that won't physically fit in your hold.

I guess we can accuse Airbus of "dismissing" the larger LD-1 containers the 747 has been able to use for almost 50 years as they designed the A380's hold "only" around the LD-3.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7184
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:58 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
.. an advanced way to tell you're settling for the Airbus AKH containers you dismissed for 25 years..


Nice to see that you are alive. With all the order announcements at Paris, I would have expected you to be offering much more commentary.

I think cargo containers will be designed around what a 797 can carry and that the plane won't be designed around what cargo containers exist today. Airlines will probably have to add cost of new containers to their overall assessment when deciding where or not to buy a 797


I don't know. The description seemed to suggest a cross-section heavily prioritising the passenger cabin, with a small widebody cross section (i.e. a 2-3-2 smaller than the 767) above the deck, and a "narrowbody cross-section" below the deck capable of accommodating an existing narrowbody container (as opposed to the widebody ones).

I quite like the idea by the way - it demonstrates some ingenuity.
I guess it is back to the quotes above. just how much passenger capacity is really needed?

It certainly seems from the surveys that the range requirements have gone up to 5 000nm minimum.
I have to question how down that route we go before we arrive back at the 787 and A330 .....

Rgds
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 5:01 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
A twin-aisle with a narrowbody cargo compartment doesn't sound like a good freighter to me either.

But what I'm struggling to understand more, is what makes a 2-3-2 Y-configuration so much better than a 3-3 economically? I agree it would be better for the pax - more comfortable, more spacious, but the airlines' priority number 1 is economics. Adding just 1 row of seats at the expense of another aisle doesn't seem like that good of an idea. I realize there's advanced calculations involved in this, far beyond my capabilities. Could someone explain it in layman's terms?


It is the boarding and de-boarding time becoming excessive when you only have a single aisle and 220+ passengers.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 532
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 5:09 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
what makes a 2-3-2 Y-configuration so much better than a 3-3 economically? I agree it would be better for the pax - more comfortable, more spacious, but the airlines' priority number 1 is economics. Adding just 1 row of seats at the expense of another aisle doesn't seem like that good of an idea.


The only thing I can think of is the possibility of 1-2-1 J class configuration. J seats with direct aisle access have a higher yield.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 5:34 pm

So the airlines don't want a much bigger aircraft (250 seats is mentioned a lot).But they do want more range (5,000nm).And they would like it faster than Boeing and engine oem's can deliver (2025 at the earliest).

Would it be possible for Airbus to offer a compromise aircraft?

Use existing GTF engine but extract a further 2k thrust per engine (should be possible as it has been bench tested to 40k)
Rework their existing double bogey MLG
Add extended wing elements similar to the 330Neo for greater lift
Small additional plugs fore and aft.

You might get 250 pax one class (220 for 2)
A range of 4.5k nm.(with 4 act,s)

Not perfect granted but cheap and quick (2-3 years?)a simple 322.

What would Boeing do then?
If when the project is launched (with new engines) then Airbus could coat tail them.With a 323 that had a brand new wing and bigger central box section creating a larger aircraft with greater range.
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1424
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:21 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Wide body, rather short, only one row of a few LD3-45 makes a beast of freighter?


I'm wasn't talking about with passengers on board.

You're right, though... where will they fit all the fish?
 
leghorn
Posts: 1297
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:13 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:24 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
A twin-aisle with a narrowbody cargo compartment doesn't sound like a good freighter to me either.

But what I'm struggling to understand more, is what makes a 2-3-2 Y-configuration so much better than a 3-3 economically? I agree it would be better for the pax - more comfortable, more spacious, but the airlines' priority number 1 is economics. Adding just 1 row of seats at the expense of another aisle doesn't seem like that good of an idea. I realize there's advanced calculations involved in this, far beyond my capabilities. Could someone explain it in layman's terms?

It will cut down the frontal area of the plane. An oval shaped composite carbonfibre body which has two aisles and cargo space below will have the same frontal area as a circular tube with 6 seat across.
That plane should slip through the air as easily as the current sized old tech planes and will be lighter and shorter (and also lighter because it is shorter)

230 passengers at 6 abreast is about 38 to 39 rows. 230 passenger at 7 abreast is 32 which is probably about 17 to 18 feet shorter.
That plane will get in and out of more difficult airports than those that an A321 or 737-max10 can handle.

Seeing as it is designed as an electronic cockpit from the outset I wonder will they manage to shave a few feet off the area forward of the nose wheel of the plane too.
 
leghorn
Posts: 1297
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:13 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:28 pm

I'd guess the authorities would let it get away with fewer escape hatches too as ease of exit for 230 passengers will be so much better than for a current technology plane.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27308
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:32 pm

leghorn wrote:
I'd guess the authorities would let it get away with fewer escape hatches too as ease of exit for 230 passengers will be so much better than for a current technology plane.


Exit Limits are dependent on the number and size of doors, not the number and size of aisles. So if both frames use the same style of exit doors, a 230-seat single-aisle will need just as many of them as a 230-seat twin-aisle would.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:55 pm

Finn350 wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
A twin-aisle with a narrowbody cargo compartment doesn't sound like a good freighter to me either.

But what I'm struggling to understand more, is what makes a 2-3-2 Y-configuration so much better than a 3-3 economically? I agree it would be better for the pax - more comfortable, more spacious, but the airlines' priority number 1 is economics. Adding just 1 row of seats at the expense of another aisle doesn't seem like that good of an idea. I realize there's advanced calculations involved in this, far beyond my capabilities. Could someone explain it in layman's terms?


It is the boarding and de-boarding time becoming excessive when you only have a single aisle and 220+ passengers.


Which does hardly matter for 7+ hour flights.

leghorn wrote:
I'd guess the authorities would let it get away with fewer escape hatches too as ease of exit for 230 passengers will be so much better than for a current technology plane.


Nope, you need to show that you can evacuate quickly enough with one side of the exits blocked.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:03 pm

seahawk wrote:
Which does hardly matter for 7+ hour flights.


It doesn't matter so much from the passenger point of view, but from the airport operations point of view it matters for how long a time a gate is needed, regardless length of the flight.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9750
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:09 pm

Finn350 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Which does hardly matter for 7+ hour flights.


It doesn't matter so much from the passenger point of view, but from the airport operations point of view it matters for how long a time a gate is needed, regardless length of the flight.


Such flights usually stay at the airport for a longer time anyway, as you usually need to adjust departure and arrival times to avoid totally unpleasant flight times. And if you do a 7 hours flight, the replacement of catering, cleaning of the cabin, tanking and turning around the plane will take longer than getting the pax in and out. If airlines like Condor can turn around a 757-300 with 275 tourists in them in an hour, a 220 pax single aisle with LD3/45s won´t be much of a problem.
Last edited by seahawk on Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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