Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 28
 
hitower3
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:42 pm

Dear a.netters,

First of all my best wishes for 2019 to all of you!

Now, after having read quite a bit about the MoM project of Boeing, please let me write down some of my concerned toughts about it:

[Economics]
This is the main driver in our current market. We hardly have got any unserved market segments because of lacking technical capabilities anymore: we can reach almost any pair of cities in the world with great reliability and sufficient economics, the only notable exception being the Kangaroo route (for now).
Therefore, the question is: can a small widebody concept match or even beat the economics of proven and continuously improving narrowbodies? I have doubts that the wider fuselage will add drag and weight while only adding one seat per row.

[Engines]
The MoM will require engines in the 35-45klbf thrust category, which is currently unserved. A brief look into the history shows that a number of projects were penalized by this very same issue: 757 (scaled down RB211), A340-200/300 (scaled up CFM56), A340-500/600 (scaled-down Trent 700/800). I have doubts that engine manufacturers will be able and willing to provide an entirely optimized, clean sheet designed engine for the MoM.

[Conclusion]
While the idea of an entirely new aircraft design, aiming at a potentially huge potential market seems attractive at first, I am doubtful if the business case is strong enough to withstand the from below (A320, B737) and above (787, A330).

Not every unserved gap in the market is a market opportunity.

Kind regards,
Hendric
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2866
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:05 pm

bigjku wrote:
catdaddy63 wrote:
Part of the business case will be the decision of where will the 797 be built. I think it's likely that Boeing is already engaged in talks for tax breaks, construction and land discounts, as well as job creation incentives with some strong non-disclosure agreements in place. That will be a huge driver of the business case of making the 797 profitable. I doubt we will see the 797 at PAE due to cost constraints, RNT is overloaded with the 737, CHS is a possibility if there is enough land to build a dual assembly line. I think it will be built somewhere that currently doesn't have a major Boeing facility but may have a partner such as Spirit nearby that can make the large composite sections and feed them directly to the assembly line. Otherwise, I think we might see a few 748LCF built to join the current fleet of 744LCF that will be getting long in the teeth by the in-service target of the 797.


I would almost guarantee that he first production line is at PAE. They will vacate the 77X LRIP to make space for it. And if you need two lines they will move all 787 work to CHS.


If Boeing finally terminates the 747 program, that frees up plenty of space at Everett for the 797 assembly line.
If Boeing main concern on this program is cost containment, then a new green field site is a nonstarter IMHO :)
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:09 pm

Sooner787 wrote:
bigjku wrote:
catdaddy63 wrote:
Part of the business case will be the decision of where will the 797 be built. I think it's likely that Boeing is already engaged in talks for tax breaks, construction and land discounts, as well as job creation incentives with some strong non-disclosure agreements in place. That will be a huge driver of the business case of making the 797 profitable. I doubt we will see the 797 at PAE due to cost constraints, RNT is overloaded with the 737, CHS is a possibility if there is enough land to build a dual assembly line. I think it will be built somewhere that currently doesn't have a major Boeing facility but may have a partner such as Spirit nearby that can make the large composite sections and feed them directly to the assembly line. Otherwise, I think we might see a few 748LCF built to join the current fleet of 744LCF that will be getting long in the teeth by the in-service target of the 797.


I would almost guarantee that he first production line is at PAE. They will vacate the 77X LRIP to make space for it. And if you need two lines they will move all 787 work to CHS.


If Boeing finally terminates the 747 program, that frees up plenty of space at Everett for the 797 assembly line.
If Boeing main concern on this program is cost containment, then a new green field site is a nonstarter IMHO :)


The 747 space won’t work I don’t believe. It’s not the right shape.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26728
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:16 pm

hitower3 wrote:
The MoM will require engines in the 35-45klbf thrust category, which is currently unserved. A brief look into the history shows that a number of projects were penalized by this very same issue: 757 (scaled down RB211), A340-200/300 (scaled up CFM56), A340-500/600 (scaled-down Trent 700/800). I have doubts that engine manufacturers will be able and willing to provide an entirely optimized, clean sheet designed engine for the MoM.

I think if the NMA has the same kind of market penetration that 757 had, Boeing would be quite happy. 1000 frames for the 757's era was a great result.

I expect to see an enhanced LEAP as the engine most likely to power the NMA. CFM has already shown its willingness to customize, with -1B having a smaller lighter fan which allows for two fewer HPT stages thus lower overall weight and length. LEAP was announced in 2008 so there's a lot of tech improvement it should be able to incorporate.

LEAP-1A already does 35klbf and with a clean sheet airframe to hang it on it should be able to grow more.

I'd love to see RR also get a shot at the NMA but it's hard to see them get all their ducks in a row and get the program award. It seems Boeing and CFM are joined at the hip.
 
B1168
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:26 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:21 pm

797 has a lot of fields to exploit in China, but their marketing strategy has to be carefully decided to make sense.
A330s have been the most frequently used domestic widebody carrier in China. As known, they pose about 300 seats. Based on above discussions, I don’t think cramming 300 seats in a 797-6 is realistic.
However, for being a MoM plane, we have to focus on MoM market itself.
We know that some routes (I.e. PEK-MSQ,PVG-TLV) operated by mid-large widebody planes (I.e. 788,332) aren’t loading enough people to make a profit; we also know that there are enough domestic city pairs with some premium and economy traffic, but insufficient for a 788 or 332. If 797-6 can operate at optimal level for both types of routes, it will be considerably appreciated by airlines.
However, for this to come true, we have to take A321XLR into account. Never forget, other than MF&DZ&AQ, most airlines in China to have the ability and intention to operate the aforementioned routes do own A320 series planes, and adding A321XLR instead of B797 means adding only a subfleet instead of a new fleet. That is a considerable expense, given A321XLR can just fill the aforementioned gap nearly as easily as a 797-6 from a passenger perspective, only lacking a few seats than a 797-6 in domestic configuration, and posing even less seats than 797-6 for long hauls. Remember, subsidy-based flights would need less seats to get rid of subsidies by itself, and less seats means less pax for new routes, so it sort of is beneficial!
797-6 has to demonstrate a high cargo load to help airlines make the profit necessary to compensate the cost from a new fleet. Other than it, I don’t see loads of difference between them (excluding 797-7).
Speaking of -7, let’s ask: given the A330 was still fairly usable to 2030 (A330’s real influx into China isn’t as early as 2005), would ‘t it be legitimate to use those 15yrs 788 for domestic, given their shorter range? -7 is harder to find space, because it essentially is a current widebody with shortened range.
Last edited by B1168 on Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:21 pm

hitower3 wrote:
Dear a.netters,

First of all my best wishes for 2019 to all of you!

Now, after having read quite a bit about the MoM project of Boeing, please let me write down some of my concerned toughts about it:

[Economics]
This is the main driver in our current market. We hardly have got any unserved market segments because of lacking technical capabilities anymore: we can reach almost any pair of cities in the world with great reliability and sufficient economics, the only notable exception being the Kangaroo route (for now).
Therefore, the question is: can a small widebody concept match or even beat the economics of proven and continuously improving narrowbodies? I have doubts that the wider fuselage will add drag and weight while only adding one seat per row.

[Engines]
The MoM will require engines in the 35-45klbf thrust category, which is currently unserved. A brief look into the history shows that a number of projects were penalized by this very same issue: 757 (scaled down RB211), A340-200/300 (scaled up CFM56), A340-500/600 (scaled-down Trent 700/800). I have doubts that engine manufacturers will be able and willing to provide an entirely optimized, clean sheet designed engine for the MoM.

[Conclusion]
While the idea of an entirely new aircraft design, aiming at a potentially huge potential market seems attractive at first, I am doubtful if the business case is strong enough to withstand the from below (A320, B737) and above (787, A330).

Not every unserved gap in the market is a market opportunity.

Kind regards,
Hendric


Taking things in reverse.

I don’t think there will be a ton of pressure from below. You can get marginal improvements out of the A320neo but absent a new wing one can only do so much. I think the A330neo will never get traction. It’s too big and too capable but not good enough to beat a 787. It won’t hit critical production volume and will fail.

WRT engines we will see what it offered. It may be a problem or it may not.

WRT economics I think it goes beyond simply matching narrowbody performance. I think within the US the larger model could do a ton of high frequency hub to hub work for the major airlines as well as transcon work. Delta alone runs gobs of flights between its various hubs on an hourly basis for many of them. For the big three in the US the plane will help maximize airport utilization.

Outside the US there is a large market of underutilized widebodies that are too big for the job. We will see what the total market is but I expect the plane to do very well in Asia.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2636
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:42 pm

Revelation wrote:
hitower3 wrote:
The MoM will require engines in the 35-45klbf thrust category, which is currently unserved. A brief look into the history shows that a number of projects were penalized by this very same issue: 757 (scaled down RB211), A340-200/300 (scaled up CFM56), A340-500/600 (scaled-down Trent 700/800). I have doubts that engine manufacturers will be able and willing to provide an entirely optimized, clean sheet designed engine for the MoM.

I think if the NMA has the same kind of market penetration that 757 had, Boeing would be quite happy. 1000 frames for the 757's era was a great result.

I expect to see an enhanced LEAP as the engine most likely to power the NMA. CFM has already shown its willingness to customize, with -1B having a smaller lighter fan which allows for two fewer HPT stages thus lower overall weight and length. LEAP was announced in 2008 so there's a lot of tech improvement it should be able to incorporate.

LEAP-1A already does 35klbf and with a clean sheet airframe to hang it on it should be able to grow more.

I'd love to see RR also get a shot at the NMA but it's hard to see them get all their ducks in a row and get the program award. It seems Boeing and CFM are joined at the hip.


I am expecting the LEAP only on the 1st 797 model, possibly 2 on the -7. Boeing is probably quite disappointed in RR with their 787 problems.

The 797 will do well, will it own the middle of the market, probably around 60% with other existing planes taking the rest, the 321 will be most of the rest.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:31 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
Revelation wrote:
hitower3 wrote:
The MoM will require engines in the 35-45klbf thrust category, which is currently unserved. A brief look into the history shows that a number of projects were penalized by this very same issue: 757 (scaled down RB211), A340-200/300 (scaled up CFM56), A340-500/600 (scaled-down Trent 700/800). I have doubts that engine manufacturers will be able and willing to provide an entirely optimized, clean sheet designed engine for the MoM.

I think if the NMA has the same kind of market penetration that 757 had, Boeing would be quite happy. 1000 frames for the 757's era was a great result.

I expect to see an enhanced LEAP as the engine most likely to power the NMA. CFM has already shown its willingness to customize, with -1B having a smaller lighter fan which allows for two fewer HPT stages thus lower overall weight and length. LEAP was announced in 2008 so there's a lot of tech improvement it should be able to incorporate.

LEAP-1A already does 35klbf and with a clean sheet airframe to hang it on it should be able to grow more.

I'd love to see RR also get a shot at the NMA but it's hard to see them get all their ducks in a row and get the program award. It seems Boeing and CFM are joined at the hip.


I am expecting the LEAP only on the 1st 797 model, possibly 2 on the -7. Boeing is probably quite disappointed in RR with their 787 problems.

The 797 will do well, will it own the middle of the market, probably around 60% with other existing planes taking the rest, the 321 will be most of the rest.


And quite importantly in my eyes what it does is set clear bounds for the 737 replacement. I expect that the 737 replacement will be lighter and have marginally less range than the A320neo and MAX variants that exist today.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:40 pm

There are many second tier cites in China and India that could use a 797 to open direct routes not only with in Asia but to the Mid East and Europe. The best way to compete with the Me3 is to flank them.
 
musman9853
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:21 pm

hitower3 wrote:
Dear a.netters,

First of all my best wishes for 2019 to all of you!

Now, after having read quite a bit about the MoM project of Boeing, please let me write down some of my concerned toughts about it:

[Economics]
This is the main driver in our current market. We hardly have got any unserved market segments because of lacking technical capabilities anymore: we can reach almost any pair of cities in the world with great reliability and sufficient economics, the only notable exception being the Kangaroo route (for now).
Therefore, the question is: can a small widebody concept match or even beat the economics of proven and continuously improving narrowbodies? I have doubts that the wider fuselage will add drag and weight while only adding one seat per row.

[Engines]
The MoM will require engines in the 35-45klbf thrust category, which is currently unserved. A brief look into the history shows that a number of projects were penalized by this very same issue: 757 (scaled down RB211), A340-200/300 (scaled up CFM56), A340-500/600 (scaled-down Trent 700/800). I have doubts that engine manufacturers will be able and willing to provide an entirely optimized, clean sheet designed engine for the MoM.

[Conclusion]
While the idea of an entirely new aircraft design, aiming at a potentially huge potential market seems attractive at first, I am doubtful if the business case is strong enough to withstand the from below (A320, B737) and above (787, A330).

Not every unserved gap in the market is a market opportunity.

Kind regards,
Hendric


Cfm has offered an upscaled leap making 52k lbf
 
Samrnpage
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:04 pm

hitower3 wrote:
Dear a.netters,

First of all my best wishes for 2019 to all of you!

Now, after having read quite a bit about the MoM project of Boeing, please let me write down some of my concerned toughts about it:

[Economics]
This is the main driver in our current market. We hardly have got any unserved market segments because of lacking technical capabilities anymore: we can reach almost any pair of cities in the world with great reliability and sufficient economics, the only notable exception being the Kangaroo route (for now).
Therefore, the question is: can a small widebody concept match or even beat the economics of proven and continuously improving narrowbodies? I have doubts that the wider fuselage will add drag and weight while only adding one seat per row.

[Engines]
The MoM will require engines in the 35-45klbf thrust category, which is currently unserved. A brief look into the history shows that a number of projects were penalized by this very same issue: 757 (scaled down RB211), A340-200/300 (scaled up CFM56), A340-500/600 (scaled-down Trent 700/800). I have doubts that engine manufacturers will be able and willing to provide an entirely optimized, clean sheet designed engine for the MoM.

[Conclusion]
While the idea of an entirely new aircraft design, aiming at a potentially huge potential market seems attractive at first, I am doubtful if the business case is strong enough to withstand the from below (A320, B737) and above (787, A330).

Not every unserved gap in the market is a market opportunity.

Kind regards,
Hendric


I actually fully agree with you.

I really want boeing to scrap this NMA idea and build the 737 replacement with 4 family members , the smallest being 737-8.5max size(as close to 200 pax as you can get), the Next family member 737-10 size the next 757/A322 hypothetical to cover the NMA . Beat Airbus to the punch, dont let them bring out the A320.5 and A322 and dominate because the 737 wont compete, force them to do a new brand new design before they do.

Edit - what do I know? I am not a CEO of aircraft manufacturer.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:25 pm

You don't design for today's market.You forecast for tomorrow's.So EIS in 10 years then you look to make hay in the 30 years that follows.
Forget about today's market dynamics that's done
 
720B
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:52 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:28 pm

Not exactly part of the topic, but I recently watched a movie about a plane and a terrorist. The movie is from the 60's (starred by Jack Lord, Hawaii 5-0). On the movie, the plane in question is referred to as the "Boeing 797" (the mockups used on movie resembles a 707)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060333/

Full movie is available on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lksK0RGdS8M

Lots of inconsistencies, when the plane is evacuated (final scene, a propeller plane is shown, etc); still somehow entertaining movie
 
A3801000
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:12 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:37 pm

So, that -6 has more or less the exact capabilities as a A321XLR, a narrowbody, build with tools paid of ages ago. But the 797 will at least catch 60% of this market why exactly? No matter the technology no way a widebody will beat a narrowbody in exact same size, give or take a handful. What is everybody so excited about? I love planes, would love a new model to appear but seriously. No way is Boeing going to offer that.
Or do you think the -7 is going to print the money? A new developed widebody, 250 -300 seats to fit exactly between 739/321 and 330/787? Are you serious?
Boeing s a great aircraft builder and they know a thing or two about economics too.
I can't see any business case here at all. Maybe taking the 757 goggles off would help.
 
osupoke07
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:39 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:43 pm

Samrnpage wrote:
hitower3 wrote:
I actually fully agree with you.

I really want boeing to scrap this NMA idea and build the 737 replacement with 4 family members , the smallest being 737-8.5max size(as close to 200 pax as you can get), the Next family member 737-10 size the next 757/A322 hypothetical to cover the NMA . Beat Airbus to the punch, dont let them bring out the A320.5 and A322 and dominate because the 737 wont compete, force them to do a new brand new design before they do.

Edit - what do I know? I am not a CEO of aircraft manufacturer.


I think they are still doing a 4 aircraft family, but I think they are starting with the top of the line first. 797-6/7 is first to develop technologies and manufacturing processes. Then later in the development cycle, they'll unveil the 797-4/5 with a narrower nose taper to reduce the width to 6AB, smaller wing, and folding wingtips. These will be the 175 and 200 seat replacements for the 737-8 and 737-9/10.

That way, you spend the major development money on a market segment you can define, own, and charge a premium for (797), and share development costs on the market you split evenly and need to keep costs as low as possible (737/NSA).
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26728
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:34 pm

A3801000 wrote:
So, that -6 has more or less the exact capabilities as a A321XLR

Nope, to get to the high end of the A321XLR stated range you need to drop pax count, and to get to the high end of the pax count you need to drop range. We know this because A321XLR is not proposing a MTOW boost over A321LR but is proposing carrying more fuel with just the (relatively small) loss of two ACTs worth of weight. A321 really needs new wing/gear/gearbox to become a true NMA competitor.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 5735
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:25 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
Airlines in China are using A330s on domestic and international routes with about 280-300 seats alongside A321s. Using a 270 seat 2 class with 38 inch pitch business (versus long haul lie flats found on many A330s) would only be about a 10% reduction in seats. If they upgauge some A321s and downgauge some A330s then they would have similar capacity.

I suspect A330s are being used on trunk routes since they are one of the few options larger than an A321, not because they are the perfect size. There are also A350s, 777s and 787s doing many domestic flights as well. Slot restrictions are requiring the use of bigger planes in airports like Beijing. Airlines already have been getting rid of relatively new 737-700s and A319s because they need more seats and replacing with 737-800s, A321s and A330s. The rise in popularity of the A321 is linked with growth in China. The Chinese Airlines are using whatever they have. An airplane actually optimized for the big domestic trunk routes would likely sell very well in China.

Specific to China, I think they also have some sort of widebody quota that demotivate airlines from buying widebody aircrafts that cannot also run long haul flights. That was said to be one of the reason why Chinese airlines didn't take the regional option of the A330 aircraft (in additional to that A330R wasn't actually optimized for regional operation)
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:26 am

A3801000 wrote:
So, that -6 has more or less the exact capabilities as a A321XLR, a narrowbody, build with tools paid of ages ago. But the 797 will at least catch 60% of this market why exactly? No matter the technology no way a widebody will beat a narrowbody in exact same size, give or take a handful. What is everybody so excited about? I love planes, would love a new model to appear but seriously. No way is Boeing going to offer that.
Or do you think the -7 is going to print the money? A new developed widebody, 250 -300 seats to fit exactly between 739/321 and 330/787? Are you serious?
Boeing s a great aircraft builder and they know a thing or two about economics too.
I can't see any business case here at all. Maybe taking the 757 goggles off would help.


The A321XLR carries around 180 to 190 passengers in a 2 class configuration. The proposed smaller 797 is around 220 in a 2 class configuration. Boeing specs out a business class cabin separate from economy like Us Carriers operate. They aren’t the same capacity.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2953
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:13 am

I think United will get a lot of mileage from a 797 order with EWR and SFO being so constrained. Uoguaging is about the only to increase passenger numbers. It will be especially versatile for EWR since it will be efficient for both domestic and international flights. It can be easily rotated. I think they have made the right decision to wait for the 797 vs AA and UA banking on the 321 as a 757/767 replacement.

I do think they should bump up the range slightly so Alaska can offer SEA-NRT/HND. I'm sure Boeing might be willing to help AS in retaliating against Delta.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:18 am

It does appear that the airplane is beginning to take shape

We continue to take input and suggestions from more than 50 customers around the world. Our NMA team remains focused on building a solid business case including understanding market opportunities, reducing program risk, and working through design tradeoffs. No decision has been made. Our Board will make one when it is ready. It’s a decision they will get to over the next year or so. If a program is launched, entry into service would be in the 2024-2025 timeframe.”

https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... eings-nma/

Image

Image
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10386
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 5:57 am

If the quote about the 2024/25 service entry is from the last weeks, this is really brave. A completely new plane certified in 5 years is a challenge.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2953
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 6:08 am

seahawk wrote:
If the quote about the 2024/25 service entry is from the last weeks, this is really brave. A completely new plane certified in 5 years is a challenge.


Not really. The 747 was launched in April 1966 and entered service in January 1970.
 
oslmgm
Posts: 229
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:29 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 6:26 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
seahawk wrote:
If the quote about the 2024/25 service entry is from the last weeks, this is really brave. A completely new plane certified in 5 years is a challenge.


Not really. The 747 was launched in April 1966 and entered service in January 1970.

And because of that, you don't think it's a challenge?
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2953
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 6:46 am

oslmgm wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
seahawk wrote:
If the quote about the 2024/25 service entry is from the last weeks, this is really brave. A completely new plane certified in 5 years is a challenge.


Not really. The 747 was launched in April 1966 and entered service in January 1970.

And because of that, you don't think it's a challenge?


Not as much as people are going on about. Technology has made incredible strides since the Boeing 747 and much of the design will be lessons learned from the 787. I see no reason why Boeing can't get it done in that time frame. It's sad how much we have regressed in our society. We still have beautiful buildings built in in less than a year in the 1920's but now it seems any building or construction project is a multi-year task. Life is too short to waste time.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2953
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:41 am

keesje wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think a possible 797 NMA would have to compete against a possible 51-53t OEW A321XLR / A322NEO seating 220-250 seats single class at 30 inch pitch.

That might be the benchmark, entering service a few years before an 797 NMA, ~2023

Image

Both will be operating in the 6-9 hour flight segment. Empty weight is a reasonable indication for direct operating costs of an aircraft.

MTOW of those likely A321 variants would be around 101t. Most likely a 797 NMA would offer more capacity and range than an A321XLR / A322NEO.

But if an NMA offers 10-15% more capacity-range but weighs/ costs 25% more (OEW ~62t), there might be a challenge.

On it self an OEW of 62t would be excellent for a 4500NM, twin aisle 275 seat NMA aircraft. But 67-72t seems more likely, e.g. a 767-200 has an OEW of ~81t.. (787-8: OEW 120t)

I see no technical paradigm shift, that will make possible to build a twin aisle 4500NM 250 seat single class aircraft more (weight, cost) efficient than a single aisle with the same specifications.

E.g. new materials / production technology didn't do the trick on same sized 789 vs A339NEO. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1352139.

a
You should call up Boeing and tell them they are wasting their time and money. Of course you think it's a bad ideas. The 797 would hurt Airbus and you just can't deal with such a thought.


What do think will be the OEW for a 787-6x. Will fantastic new technology make moonshot design fly in 4-5 yrs? Awesome times TTailedTiger!


Tell me, which Boeing commercial jet has been a flop? The 707? 727? 737? 747? 757? 767? 777? 787?
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:15 am

Sportsmans bet that the 797 is not in service in 2024! Be incredible to make 2025 but they may be more advanced in their planning than we know.But even then 2025 would be pushing it.I think he's talking to old 767 operators!
However there is always the little matter of engines,engines that work and have ironed out teething problems.Having said that they may well go for a single engine supplier (GE of course) and scale up their LEAP engine ( plus a bit of GE9) ,but still a lot to ask imho.

No an A321XLR is not a MOM.
But I have not read anywhere that they intend to reduce pax from the LR so an honest pax answer is 206 in two classes.No not 'miles' apart.
And yes they have said they would be increasing the MTOW from 97T.However they have not said by how much -the 101T is an educated guess.Cant be much more than that for single bogey undercarriage surely.
Of course it may not happen and even if it does we don't know cruising altitudes or how many steps to get there etc.Hell they may surprise us - or not.But if B do launch in June then this response from A must be very likely.There is no other.
 
smi0006
Posts: 2643
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:44 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
I think United will get a lot of mileage from a 797 order with EWR and SFO being so constrained. Uoguaging is about the only to increase passenger numbers. It will be especially versatile for EWR since it will be efficient for both domestic and international flights. It can be easily rotated. I think they have made the right decision to wait for the 797 vs AA and UA banking on the 321 as a 757/767 replacement.

I do think they should bump up the range slightly so Alaska can offer SEA-NRT/HND. I'm sure Boeing might be willing to help AS in retaliating against Delta.


Domestic seems ideal for QF too, they are already pretty frequency heavy up and down the east coast- with 330s a few times a day. I wonder if BA would use them within Europe at all as well? Seems a good replacement for many carriers who couldn’t quiet replace their short haul 767s.

I wonder how much turn times could make a difference? Disembarking a widebody through two aisle and wider door is much faster than a single aisle. This improves utilisation on short haul domestic routes, and can even reduce the need for additional frames. I know one carrier needed to shave 15mins from a 75min 321 to allow high enough utilisation, and save them from purchasing two extra frames.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4194
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:50 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Tell me, which Boeing commercial jet has been a flop? The 707? 727? 737? 747? 757? 767? 777? 787?

Image
Image
Image
Image
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2953
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:57 am

flipdewaf wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Tell me, which Boeing commercial jet has been a flop? The 707? 727? 737? 747? 757? 767? 777? 787?

Image
Image
Image
Image


What is wrong with you? Those were concepts. They were never produced.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4194
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:21 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Tell me, which Boeing commercial jet has been a flop? The 707? 727? 737? 747? 757? 767? 777? 787?

Image
Image
Image
Image


What is wrong with you? Those were concepts. They were never produced.

So what you are saying is that Boeing are good at deciding which concepts to launch and which to can. Have Boeing launched the MOM yet?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14620
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:26 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
keesje wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
a
You should call up Boeing and tell them they are wasting their time and money. Of course you think it's a bad ideas. The 797 would hurt Airbus and you just can't deal with such a thought.


What do think will be the OEW for a 787-6x. Will fantastic new technology make moonshot design fly in 4-5 yrs? Awesome times TTailedTiger!


Tell me, which Boeing commercial jet has been a flop? The 707? 727? 737? 747? 757? 767? 777? 787?


Boeing has a great track record, although not all projects were successful immediately. I don't want to be negative, but also avoid the pink B glasses. The 737-7, 737-9, 747-8, 757-300, 767-200, 767-400ER, 777-8, 787-3, Sonic Cruiser, NSA, KC767, NMA would not qualify as major successes (yet) I guess.

I think Boeing will have to be conservatve on payload range, to prevent this aircraft becoming an Cadillac Escalade instead of a Kia Optima PHEV in terms of cost efficiency.

Image
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2953
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:34 am

keesje wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
keesje wrote:

What do think will be the OEW for a 787-6x. Will fantastic new technology make moonshot design fly in 4-5 yrs? Awesome times TTailedTiger!


Tell me, which Boeing commercial jet has been a flop? The 707? 727? 737? 747? 757? 767? 777? 787?


Boeing has a great track record, although not all projects were successful immediately. I don't want to be negative, but also avoid the pink B glasses. The 737-7, 737-9, 747-8, 757-300, 767-200, 767-400ER, 777-8, 787-3, Sonic Cruiser, NSA, KC767, NMA would not qualify as major successes (yet) I guess.

I think Boeing will have to be conservatve on payload range, to prevent this aircraft becoming an Cadillac Escalade instead of a Kia Optima PHEV in terms of cost efficiency.

Image


I'm not talking about subtypes. All manufacturers have had less than stellar results with some subtypes. MD-81, MD-87, DC-9-40, A318, A340NG, A330neo. But unlike you I'm not going to count aircraft that never went into production. Who the hell knows what would have happened with the A350-800 or A350mk1.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26728
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:09 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
Not as much as people are going on about. Technology has made incredible strides since the Boeing 747 and much of the design will be lessons learned from the 787. I see no reason why Boeing can't get it done in that time frame. It's sad how much we have regressed in our society. We still have beautiful buildings built in in less than a year in the 1920's but now it seems any building or construction project is a multi-year task. Life is too short to waste time.

Aircraft of the current era are a lot safer than those of the 60s and 70s because there is a lot more testing required to gain certification, and that stretches out the time line.

I can imagine some of it is obsolete and thus a waste of time, but it's hard to be sure which part of it is, and you don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water.
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 2028
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:24 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
This range allows it to do the vast majority of routes that Asian airlines currently fly with A330s as well as most interesting trans-Pacific routes and all trans-Atlantic routes.

By not pushing the range further, the 797 will have reduced structural weight and thus cost.


https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boe ... -analysts/

It sounds like the engineering design is progressing so they can work on what the production methods will look like to have a better understanding of cost.


“It takes a long time to get it right,” Boeing Commercial Airplanes v-p of marketing Randy Tinseth told AIN, rebuffing suggestions that the NMA process appears elongated. Boeing started talking about a potential replacement for its 757 in 2012 and the new model would enter service in the middle of the next decade. “Maybe this is an airplane where we are a little more boisterous in the market on what we are thinking and planning,” he reckoned.

The development of the business case for Boeing’s proposed NMA, a midsize airliner with 220 to 270 seats and a range of 5,000 nm, continues apace, Tinseth said. “We engaged with our customers, we worked to understand the market. There is not a lot to share about what has changed because what we are doing now is really inside [Boeing],” he said. The OEM is considering available technologies, production systems and capabilities, and whether or not it can build the new model at a cost that the market would accept. Boeing will decide on the plan next year, he stressed, though he cautioned the decision will depend purely on the business case. “There have been times where we worked really hard on programs and we decided they would not be economically viable,” he said.


This sums it up. Go for the bulk of the widebody market with minimum weight/costs. The 797 must compete with narrowbody aircraft, so it cannot have long range or the bulk of the market will have poor economics. The 330 and 788 market is the obvious target. If more range is required, there are plenty of widebodies to choose amoung.

Lightsaber



I agree the A330 is an obvious target the 788 is less obvious to me...is Boeing considering the 788 pretty much dead 8 years after EIS?...seems a bit premature...is the frame still selling or has it been cannibalised by the 789?...


Faro
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:34 pm

It might be simpler if the two possible aircaft are not compared directly -since they should not be imho.
One is an A321 - not a stretched 322 ( that is the 'plus' and 'plus plus' which they have stated they are not proceeding with at the moment).
The XLR simply would give the 321 comparable range to the MOM but is smaller in every dimension from engine to wing to body.
So the question therefore becomes 'what does/will the market want a 200 seater or a 220-260 seater'?
In the case of Airbus they have no choice unless they wish to rebuild the aircaft almost entirely (the plus plus),whereas the 797 sizes are market driven from a clean sheet.
That does not mean there is 'no' market for the 200 seater ( 2 class) it certainly exists with the wingletted 752.And obviously it's costs/time to market will be enormously different. Probably room for both imho.

The far larger issue for Airbus imho is that the 797 will drive the final nail in the 338 NEO coffin.Which in turn leaves the 339neo an orphan.It will soldier on for a while no doubt,it has orders and is very efficient at x9ab medium haul.But they are going to have to look hard at the rather large gap that may appear in their portfolio between the A321neo and the A359.
Airbus' turn in 2020/1 methinks!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26728
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:41 pm

Faro wrote:
I agree the A330 is an obvious target the 788 is less obvious to me...is Boeing considering the 788 pretty much dead 8 years after EIS?...seems a bit premature...is the frame still selling or has it been cannibalised by the 789?...

There's not a lot of overlap between NMA and 788. 788 has a lot more capacity (50% more range, 2 more Y class seats per row) yet some do "abuse" it on shorter routes since it has high efficiency. NMA will be a much better fit for routes up to 8 hours or so. 788 is a 12 hour plane.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10386
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 1:04 pm

50% more range, depends on what the range for the MoM actually means. If it means with full maximum payload at 4500nm, it would be just 1000nm less than a 788 or "only" 22% more for the 788, although with a much higher payload. To further assess this one would need to know if the plane is MTOW limited or fuel capacity limited at maximum range.

A 787 is MTOW limited, so you can easily trade payload for range. The A321 is fuel capacity limited, so even reducing payload gives you very little effect without adding additional volume for fuel (ACTs).

As it is new design I expect it to be MTOW limited, but as we know it will have very little cargo capacity, there is not that much payload you can trade without reducing seats.

In the end this is the challenge of the 797, to get the conflicting goals in a perfect compromise.

You want to make the plane as small and light as possible to be competitive on short routes, but this means you want to keep fuel volume and MTOW down, which costs you range, but you still need a certain range and capacity to differentiate from the A321. And with little cargo capacity (by volume alone - as we want to keep the plane small and light) you have little payload you can actually trade for range, so the desired range needs to be achieved with a high payload or nearly full payload.

And all this with engines probably not more than half a generation more advanced. It will a challenging puzzle to do this. Luckily the A320 is dated and modern technology helps.

787:
https://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/comme ... ps/787.pdf
A321:
https://skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2370.pdf
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3529
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 1:26 pm

Again, just as Airbus has a ballpark idea how efficient the 797 will be, Boeing also has a good idea how efficient an A321 rewinged will be ( super computers are amazing at their computations these days). The Boeing engineers are NOT focused only against the present a321 or A330NEO. Boeing will not be "suprised" by Airbus's response.

If the 797 does not go forward its because it could not compete against an A321 rewinged concept, or just too expensive to do so. But if it does launch, then Boeing's engineers have figured out the secrete sauce (WB with near NB costs, for not much more than a NB).

There, just summarized the next 20 pages of responses between A and B fans until launch or no launch this summer.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14620
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:03 pm

It seems for a given cabin capacity, 2-3-2 hurts on the cargo side of things when using standard containers/pallets.

- 250 Seats single class in a 3-3 NB means 42 rows
- 250 Seats single class in 2-3-2 WB means 36 rows
- Difference 6 rows of 30 inch pitch equals 180 inch of fuselage

If both A322 and 797 use the same standard AKH containers / PKC pallets, this means a 3-3 NB (possible A322) can
take 3 more containers / pallets (of 1100 kg max) than a same seat capacity 2-3-2 (possible) 797.

Substantial, specially if e.g. 7 containers are required for passenger bags.

Image
https://nl.pinterest.com/pin/353673376963064711/?lp=true
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26728
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:15 pm

keesje wrote:
It seems for a given cabin capacity, 2-3-2 hurts on the cargo side of things when using standard containers/pallets.

Yet we know the 'long thin tube' comes with its own compromises (ref: A340-600).

As for the general issue of cargo:

Newbiepilot wrote:
“We ask our customers whether they want to carry those big containers or have better economics through saving weight. It's pretty close to unanimous that they want the most efficient aircraft.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... is-453005/

Boeing finds the customers aren't looking to this aircraft to be the ultimate cargo hauler.

That does leave room for 787 and A330, but that's not the market the NMA is trying to address.

Seems a.net talks more about A322 than does Airbus.

All Airbus tells us is they've shelved A322 and are finding room for more fuel on A321 and are focused on optimizing manufacturing A320 family efficiency.

Seems someday maybe perhaps that might perchance potentially change, but for now it's all just speculation.
Last edited by Revelation on Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14620
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:19 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
It seems for a given cabin capacity, 2-3-2 hurts on the cargo side of things when using standard containers/pallets.

Yet we know the 'long thin tube' comes with its own compromises (ref: A340-600).

Seems a.net talks more about A322 than does Airbus.

All Airbus tells us is they've shelved A322 and are finding room for more fuel on A321 and are focused on optimizing manufacturing A320 family efficiency.

Seems someday maybe perhaps that might perchance potentially change, but for now it's all just speculation.


Just like any Boeing 797 MOM NMA assumption over the last 7 years I guess. :wink2:

I guess you are referring to this article. :
" Airbus suspends A320 revamp study amid output problems"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbus-a320-exclusive/exclusive-airbus-suspends-a320-revamp-study-amid-output-problems-idUSKBN1HH1SS

That's settled than, Airbus halted all revamp studies last june. Development people were probably send home, or send out, to assist suppliers in getting engines delivered. Better believe it.

:rotfl:
Last edited by keesje on Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
StTim
Posts: 3816
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:23 pm

It amazes me - given how some people on here predict huge sales of the as yet unannounced 797 - that Boeing has been quite clear that they have had to work hard to close the business case.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:28 pm

keesje wrote:
It seems for a given cabin capacity, 2-3-2 hurts on the cargo side of things when using standard containers/pallets.

- 250 Seats single class in a 3-3 NB means 42 rows
- 250 Seats single class in 2-3-2 WB means 36 rows
- Difference 6 rows of 30 inch pitch equals 180 inch of fuselage

If both A322 and 797 use the same standard AKH containers / PKC pallets, this means a 3-3 NB (possible A322) can
take 3 more containers / pallets (of 1100 kg max) than a same seat capacity 2-3-2 (possible) 797.

Substantial, specially if e.g. 7 containers are required for passenger bags.
]


Cargo capacity is a valid point. Boeing is obviously talking with airlines to find out what compromises work best

A number of AAPA’s members are major cargo operators such as Korean Air, Cathay Pacific and China Airlines. It has been reported that some Asia-Pacific carriers are focused on the NMA's cargo carrying capability, while North American carriers are considerably less concerned with this.

Tinseth, however, downplays the apparent divergence of views.

“The airplane is going to carry cargo, but it's not going to be a widebody aircraft the way you think about it,” he says. “A widebody has a structure that's built to carry those big containers, and there is a cost associated with that, and it's not insignificant. We ask our customers whether they want to carry those big containers or have better economics through saving weight. It's pretty close to unanimous that they want the most efficient aircraft.”

Boeing has previously suggested an aircraft with a hybrid fuselage cross-section, which is generally taken to mean a wider passenger cabin and a narrower cargo bay.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... is-453005/

From that article it appears airlines want efficiency. LD3s are out. They may be willing to pay for a new container size so they can have a more efficient plane. I don’t know how much backlash the 767 got from Using unique LD2s, but airlines clearly want efficiency over big containers.


Pressed further for details of the NMA, Mounir said “We’re looking at optimising the cross-section, giving you the best cross-section for passenger comfort, while not carrying more structure than you need.”

RGN asked Mounir if Boeing was planning to give airlines the choice to add one extra seat on the cross section, like the 787 — a choice which almost all operators made.

“We’re looking at — we’re talking to customers. Nothing is firm. We’re going through iterations; we don’t know yet how it’s going to end up.”

...

The NMA promise is for either long and thin or highly dense markets,” Mounir said. “In the highly dense markets, what they care about is passenger economics. That market is being addressed by A330s today, and old 767s, and old 757s.”

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2018/08/2 ... 797-paxex/

Again it is clear Boeing is talking to the airlines about what works best. They have the advantage of building something new so they can take the time to get a compromise that works best. It also looked like the A330 is clearly something that Boeing wants to displace from highly dense markets.

The analysts said the design appeared to be firming, with a 2-3-2 seating arrangement and a composite fuselage and wing.
...
The 797 would have twice the overhead bin space and two aisles, and most passengers would have an aisle or window seat.
...
The rise and rise of premium economy suggests they will.

Boarding of single-aisle aircraft is becoming a nightmare, particularly in the US where the trend is for passengers to bring all their luggage on-board with them.

This is a major problem as the overhead bins are not large enough and the drama surrounding getting the luggage into the overhead slows the boarding process to a crawl.

Verbal fights often break out over “luggage space”.


https://thewest.com.au/news/aviation/bo ... b88994564z

Twice the overhead bin space freeing up space in the cargo hold below could work for some airlines. There is only so much space in a narrowbody. The 787 bins are downright huge. They are bigger than needed for a standard carryon. Likewise the big bin options on the A320 and 737 family are generous, but still can get very full in winter. If the NMA allows a rollaboard for every passenger, I could see that freeing up more space below deck. Far better than filling up the cargo hold with auxiliary fuel tanks.
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26728
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:30 pm

keesje wrote:
Just like any Boeing 797 MOM NMA assumption over the last 7 years I guess. :wink2:

True, it's speculation, but we have a consistent paper trail of reports from the aviation media on NMA complete with leaked renderings.

StTim wrote:
It amazes me - given how some people on here predict huge sales of the as yet unannounced 797 - that Boeing has been quite clear that they have had to work hard to close the business case.

I think you're exaggerating.

I don't see "people on here predict huge sales of the as yet unannounced 797".

I do see people often state that the biggest challenge is closing the business case, and that it might not ever close.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:31 pm

seahawk wrote:
In the end many things are still undefined, like range. 4500nm sounds nice, but what does it mean - 4500nm with full payload, typical payload, passengers and bags only 3 class?

This adds question like capacity. How much space is available when you go with a full payload of passengers and bags.

We know it is a twin aisle, so just for arguments sake. lets say they want to use LD3/45s like the A320 series.

240 seats 6 abreast: 40 rows
240 seats 7 abreast: 34 rows
240 seats 8 abreast: 30 rows

There won´t be much space for cargo left.


Advertised range for a passenger aircraft is always passengers and bags at 95 to 100 kilos each.

Because job 1 for this aircraft is TATL, the seating would match 767 international configurations with lie flat seats. So the small one matches the 763 almost exactly and the big one is a little bigger than a 764 (say about 2 Y rows bigger). With recliners at 35 inch pitch, I would expect the small one to be 260 to 270 pax, about what the Delta non ER Pratts do, and the big one to be about 300 pax. Single class would be about 300 and 350 pax, with appropriate range reductions.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:35 pm

jagraham wrote:
seahawk wrote:
In the end many things are still undefined, like range. 4500nm sounds nice, but what does it mean - 4500nm with full payload, typical payload, passengers and bags only 3 class?

This adds question like capacity. How much space is available when you go with a full payload of passengers and bags.

We know it is a twin aisle, so just for arguments sake. lets say they want to use LD3/45s like the A320 series.

240 seats 6 abreast: 40 rows
240 seats 7 abreast: 34 rows
240 seats 8 abreast: 30 rows

There won´t be much space for cargo left.


Advertised range for a passenger aircraft is always passengers and bags at 95 to 100 kilos each.

Because job 1 for this aircraft is TATL, the seating would match 767 international configurations with lie flat seats. So the small one matches the 763 almost exactly and the big one is a little bigger than a 764 (say about 2 Y rows bigger). With recliners at 35 inch pitch, I would expect the small one to be 260 to 270 pax, about what the Delta non ER Pratts do, and the big one to be about 300 pax. Single class would be about 300 and 350 pax, with appropriate range reductions.


I’m not so sure about that. Boeing specs the 767-200 and 300 at about 220 and 270 in two class configurations.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:45 pm

Re above yup.Boeing themselves have openly conceded the cargo issue - more than once.Its a people mover and physically structured for that.Yes it will carry 320 sized containers both for luggage and some cargo ,but if cargo ( and its associated weight) is important this is not the aircraft for you full stop.They couldn't be clearer on this issue.
Regarding passenger luggage,clearly they see the future heavily biased towards 'carry on' although obviously not exclusively.There can't be one of us that hasn't got engaged in the problem of finding overhead space on certain flights on NB's.
Regarding dense traffic routes.It would probably make ( thinking Europe) a great charter aircraft but not so sure about classic LCC at least in the short/medium term.But in 15-20 years time? If pax growth continues as it has, then perhaps.But for multi class legacy airlines it might be very tempting very soon.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14620
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:50 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
It seems for a given cabin capacity, 2-3-2 hurts on the cargo side of things when using standard containers/pallets.

- 250 Seats single class in a 3-3 NB means 42 rows
- 250 Seats single class in 2-3-2 WB means 36 rows
- Difference 6 rows of 30 inch pitch equals 180 inch of fuselage

If both A322 and 797 use the same standard AKH containers / PKC pallets, this means a 3-3 NB (possible A322) can
take 3 more containers / pallets (of 1100 kg max) than a same seat capacity 2-3-2 (possible) 797.

Substantial, specially if e.g. 7 containers are required for passenger bags.
]


Cargo capacity is a valid point. Boeing is obviously talking with airlines to find out what compromises work best

A number of AAPA’s members are major cargo operators such as Korean Air, Cathay Pacific and China Airlines. It has been reported that some Asia-Pacific carriers are focused on the NMA's cargo carrying capability, while North American carriers are considerably less concerned with this.

Tinseth, however, downplays the apparent divergence of views.

“The airplane is going to carry cargo, but it's not going to be a widebody aircraft the way you think about it,” he says. “A widebody has a structure that's built to carry those big containers, and there is a cost associated with that, and it's not insignificant. We ask our customers whether they want to carry those big containers or have better economics through saving weight. It's pretty close to unanimous that they want the most efficient aircraft.”

Boeing has previously suggested an aircraft with a hybrid fuselage cross-section, which is generally taken to mean a wider passenger cabin and a narrower cargo bay.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... is-453005/

From that article it appears airlines want efficiency. LD3s are out. They may be willing to pay for a new container size so they can have a more efficient plane. I don’t know how much backlash the 767 got from Using unique LD2s, but airlines clearly want efficiency over big containers.


Pressed further for details of the NMA, Mounir said “We’re looking at optimising the cross-section, giving you the best cross-section for passenger comfort, while not carrying more structure than you need.”

RGN asked Mounir if Boeing was planning to give airlines the choice to add one extra seat on the cross section, like the 787 — a choice which almost all operators made.

“We’re looking at — we’re talking to customers. Nothing is firm. We’re going through iterations; we don’t know yet how it’s going to end up.”

...

The NMA promise is for either long and thin or highly dense markets,” Mounir said. “In the highly dense markets, what they care about is passenger economics. That market is being addressed by A330s today, and old 767s, and old 757s.”

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2018/08/2 ... 797-paxex/

Again it is clear Boeing is talking to the airlines about what works best. They have the advantage of building something new so they can take the time to get a compromise that works best. It also looked like the A330 is clearly something that Boeing wants to displace from highly dense markets.

The analysts said the design appeared to be firming, with a 2-3-2 seating arrangement and a composite fuselage and wing.
...
The 797 would have twice the overhead bin space and two aisles, and most passengers would have an aisle or window seat.
...
The rise and rise of premium economy suggests they will.

Boarding of single-aisle aircraft is becoming a nightmare, particularly in the US where the trend is for passengers to bring all their luggage on-board with them.

This is a major problem as the overhead bins are not large enough and the drama surrounding getting the luggage into the overhead slows the boarding process to a crawl.

Verbal fights often break out over “luggage space”.


https://thewest.com.au/news/aviation/bo ... b88994564z

Twice the overhead bin space freeing up space in the cargo hold below could work for some airlines. There is only so much space in a narrowbody. The 787 bins are downright huge. They are bigger than needed for a standard carryon. Likewise the big bin options on the A320 and 737 family are generous, but still can get very full in winter. If the NMA allows a rollaboard for every passenger, I could see that freeing up more space below deck. Far better than filling up the cargo hold with auxiliary fuel tanks.


Although on A320 cross section 17 inch seats can be combined with an 25 inch aisle, it's an issue. Not only during during (de)boarding.

I tried to think of something that would better tap into the cargo potential of a possible 797 wider cross section, without loosing all commonality to the standard NB containers many airlines and industry are already using. IMO it could serious improve NMA attractiveness for Asian and European markets.

Image
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:56 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
It seems for a given cabin capacity, 2-3-2 hurts on the cargo side of things when using standard containers/pallets.

- 250 Seats single class in a 3-3 NB means 42 rows
- 250 Seats single class in 2-3-2 WB means 36 rows
- Difference 6 rows of 30 inch pitch equals 180 inch of fuselage

If both A322 and 797 use the same standard AKH containers / PKC pallets, this means a 3-3 NB (possible A322) can
take 3 more containers / pallets (of 1100 kg max) than a same seat capacity 2-3-2 (possible) 797.

Substantial, specially if e.g. 7 containers are required for passenger bags.
]


Cargo capacity is a valid point. Boeing is obviously talking with airlines to find out what compromises work best

A number of AAPA’s members are major cargo operators such as Korean Air, Cathay Pacific and China Airlines. It has been reported that some Asia-Pacific carriers are focused on the NMA's cargo carrying capability, while North American carriers are considerably less concerned with this.

Tinseth, however, downplays the apparent divergence of views.

“The airplane is going to carry cargo, but it's not going to be a widebody aircraft the way you think about it,” he says. “A widebody has a structure that's built to carry those big containers, and there is a cost associated with that, and it's not insignificant. We ask our customers whether they want to carry those big containers or have better economics through saving weight. It's pretty close to unanimous that they want the most efficient aircraft.”

Boeing has previously suggested an aircraft with a hybrid fuselage cross-section, which is generally taken to mean a wider passenger cabin and a narrower cargo bay.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... is-453005/

From that article it appears airlines want efficiency. LD3s are out. They may be willing to pay for a new container size so they can have a more efficient plane. I don’t know how much backlash the 767 got from Using unique LD2s, but airlines clearly want efficiency over big containers.


Pressed further for details of the NMA, Mounir said “We’re looking at optimising the cross-section, giving you the best cross-section for passenger comfort, while not carrying more structure than you need.”

RGN asked Mounir if Boeing was planning to give airlines the choice to add one extra seat on the cross section, like the 787 — a choice which almost all operators made.

“We’re looking at — we’re talking to customers. Nothing is firm. We’re going through iterations; we don’t know yet how it’s going to end up.”

...

The NMA promise is for either long and thin or highly dense markets,” Mounir said. “In the highly dense markets, what they care about is passenger economics. That market is being addressed by A330s today, and old 767s, and old 757s.”

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2018/08/2 ... 797-paxex/

Again it is clear Boeing is talking to the airlines about what works best. They have the advantage of building something new so they can take the time to get a compromise that works best. It also looked like the A330 is clearly something that Boeing wants to displace from highly dense markets.

The analysts said the design appeared to be firming, with a 2-3-2 seating arrangement and a composite fuselage and wing.
...
The 797 would have twice the overhead bin space and two aisles, and most passengers would have an aisle or window seat.
...
The rise and rise of premium economy suggests they will.

Boarding of single-aisle aircraft is becoming a nightmare, particularly in the US where the trend is for passengers to bring all their luggage on-board with them.

This is a major problem as the overhead bins are not large enough and the drama surrounding getting the luggage into the overhead slows the boarding process to a crawl.

Verbal fights often break out over “luggage space”.


https://thewest.com.au/news/aviation/bo ... b88994564z

Twice the overhead bin space freeing up space in the cargo hold below could work for some airlines. There is only so much space in a narrowbody. The 787 bins are downright huge. They are bigger than needed for a standard carryon. Likewise the big bin options on the A320 and 737 family are generous, but still can get very full in winter. If the NMA allows a rollaboard for every passenger, I could see that freeing up more space below deck. Far better than filling up the cargo hold with auxiliary fuel tanks.


Although on A320 cross section 17 inch seats can be combined with an 25 aisle, it's an issue. Not only during during (de)boarding.

I tried to think of something that would better tap into the cargo potential of a possible 797 wider cross section, without loosing all commonality to the standard NB containers many airlines and industry are already using. IMO it could serious improve NMA attractiveness for Asian and European markets.

Image


We discussed the idea of an extendable container in the tech ops thread you started

viewtopic.php?t=1365951

B777LRF wrote:
From someone who used to be the station manager of a ULD repair facility: I'll give this 'extension mechanism' a service life of between 2 and 4 days before it breaks. Seriously, ULDs are abused during ground handling like nothing else. They are dropped, pushed, driven into and generally treated like the dirt under your shoes. The key to durability is simplicity and ruggedness; introducing an extension mechanism, however simple and rugged, will simply lead to an increase in repairs, which means increased downtime and that in turn means the airline(s) need to purchase a larger number of ULDs to ensure there's enough around.


Trying to use common containers between the A320 and NMA seems like a very low priority.

If an airline wants to fly lots of cargo, they can buy the A330. The A330 has a high cabin floor compromise to fit LD3s. I think that is the compromise that Boeing said that airlines don’t want in the NMA. Creating extendable LD3-45 is probably equally unpalatable. How is your patent going with this design?

The 737 has customized cargo containers now too for airlines who want them

https://www.mro-network.com/maintenance ... boeing-737

Image
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26728
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:03 pm

keesje wrote:
That's settled than, Airbus halted all revamp studies last june. Development people were probably send home, or send out, to assist suppliers in getting engines delivered. Better believe it.

:rotfl:

Thanks for providing a textbook example of a troll post.

We have media quotes of the Airbus CCO telling us that resources were shifted off A320 +/++ and we have media quotes from the engineer leading the A321XLR design study.

You don't have any other evidence to contradict that or evidence that supports your own position, so you try to make points off of things that people didn't say and throw in a taunting meme to finish.

Par for the course.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 28

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