cledaybuck
Posts: 1464
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:07 pm

keesje wrote:
Carlos01 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The turnaround time won´t be much different. More seats mean more seats to clean, more food to restock, more trash to take out.

Sure a FR or U2 like operation could probably squeeze a few minutes out of the process, but I doubt they are seen as operators for the plane. And once you get premium class seats and catering in the plane, restocking and cleaning those alone will eat up any advantage.


From the point a narrowbody plane connects to the airbridge, it takes normally 20-30 minutes for the boarding to start for the next flight. This includes unloading anything below deck, refueling, recycling, cleaning, catering, potentially a crew change. If the plane has 20-30% more seats but 2 aisles, I don't see anything there why it would take longer, also nothing why it would be considerably quicker. At least the twin-aisle will not make it more difficult, and if they have to add a handful of people for the cleaning crew for 10 minutes, I doubt it costs a lot.

But seriously, from the point when boarding starts, in a full 320/737, it takes 30-60 minutes until all passengers have found their seats. And that again is due to the fact, that each one of those 200 people will have to queue in the airbridge and wait for their turn to enter the plane, to lift their luggage in the overhead bin, or ask someone to lift it for them, take off their jacket, quadruple-check the seat number, then ask someone to change their seat with someone because they want to seat somewhere else, get in their seat, fasten their seatbelt, unfasten the seatbelt, get off the seat and let someone else go to the window, re-seat, re-fasten, re-member that something was forgotten in the luggage, unfasten, get up, lift down luggage, fix the issue, lift the luggage back up, cram the luggage because it longer fits, test that the overhead bin lid closes - it doesn't - ask the FA to help - it really doesn't fit - here you can put your bag here in the back, excuse me sir, coming through, sorry, pardon, myfaultmyfault, lift the bag in the empty bin (which now limits the other people to fit their's), make their way back to their seat, wait for passengers coming on, navigate, finally sit down, and then remember that they also wanted to use the bathroom before takeoff.

This is the time that can be cut in half with 2 aisles. In other words down to 15-30mins. And that does make a huge difference, no matter how much the Airbus fanboys try to argue against it.

That of course does not have an impact on the fact that there is always some schmuck who is late for boarding, or connecting passengers, or delays with the luggage, or delays given by air traffic control. But even then, the biggest single factor impacting the turnaround time on average, is the boarding procedure.


Easyjet alreadu choose to make A320 /A321 seats "737 standard width", and widen the aisle up to 25 inch.

Add 5 inch to that and people will slip past the persons :

" lift their luggage in the overhead bin, or ask someone to lift it for them, take off their jacket, quadruple-check the seat number, then ask someone to change their seat with someone because they want to seat somewhere else, get in their seat, fasten their seatbelt, unfasten the seatbelt, get off the seat and let someone else go to the window, re-seat, re-fasten, re-member that something was forgotten in the luggage, unfasten, get up, lift down luggage, fix the issue, lift the luggage back up, cram the luggage because it longer fits, test that the overhead bin lid closes - it doesn't - ask the FA to help - it really doesn't fit - here you can put your bag here in the back, excuse me sir, coming through, sorry, pardon, myfaultmyfault, lift the bag in the empty bin (which now limits the other people to fit their's), make their way back to their seat, wait for passengers coming on, navigate, finally sit down, and then remember that they also wanted to use the bathroom before takeoff. "


:lol:

Image
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-interior-of-easy-jet-easyjet-plane-airplane-with-passengers-seated-14757916.html

That lady in the front right does not look happy to have her picture taken.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2905
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:59 pm

Carlos01 wrote:
This is the time that can be cut in half with 2 aisles. In other words down to 15-30mins


If this is true, it may be enough incentive to get Southwest to add a new frame to their fleet. :scratchchin:

I wonder if they still have the aversion to composite airplanes :talktothehand:

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2792
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:00 pm

morrisond wrote:
keesje wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
That is certainly one factor, as 7- abreast haa the fewest seats per aisle, and hence will have the fastest turnaround times of any common configuration. But that is important only on very short routes, where the plane makes multiple stops per day. And that is not the market that NMA is targeting.


I wonder about that. If you have a narrow aisle & someone is doing his luggage, everybody waits. Also on a twin aisles. Is everybody would be able to pass each other comfortably, all the time, that could make a huge difference. Also for people getting in and out of seats. The ~10 inch wider fuselage would allow direct aisle access 1-2-1 or 1-1-1 in front and offer better stiffness for fuselages up to 270 seats. And carry more AKH containers than a same seat capacity 2-3-2 fuselage.

Image


Keesje - how big is your Cross Section? Are you assuming 10" wider than A320 and circular? So a 166" Circle? That gives a cross section area of 21,672"Sq - Versus an 170"x188" Oval at 25,101"Sq - or 15.8% more for 16.7% more Y seats and 25-50% more premium seats.

How would that be better than a tight light 7W?

Just Visualize that in your head - Picture you are sitting in an A320 - for an extra 11" width on each side (hold your hands up and spread them 11" farther apart - it's really marginal) - for that you get an extra row and an extra Y seat and a 22" wider Container, which gives you about 50% more cargo volume than an A320 for every meter of Fuselage length.

If you hold Fuselage height to your same 166" - the Oval is only 13.1% more cross section surface area.

And in either circumstance what is the increase in weight? the issue really isn't in cross sectional area especially for these short missions. It also strikes me that neglecting to look at weight would show that the savings one might be able to attribute to lower surface area would simply be eaten by additional surface area required on the wings.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8510
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:02 pm

Carlos01 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The turnaround time won´t be much different. More seats mean more seats to clean, more food to restock, more trash to take out.

Sure a FR or U2 like operation could probably squeeze a few minutes out of the process, but I doubt they are seen as operators for the plane. And once you get premium class seats and catering in the plane, restocking and cleaning those alone will eat up any advantage.


From the point a narrowbody plane connects to the airbridge, it takes normally 20-30 minutes for the boarding to start for the next flight. This includes unloading anything below deck, refueling, recycling, cleaning, catering, potentially a crew change. If the plane has 20-30% more seats but 2 aisles, I don't see anything there why it would take longer, also nothing why it would be considerably quicker. At least the twin-aisle will not make it more difficult, and if they have to add a handful of people for the cleaning crew for 10 minutes, I doubt it costs a lot.....


I thin we all agree that the 797 will offer much better passenger comfort and a much more pleasant onboard experience compared to a cramped Airbus, but I still believe that turn around time is overrated and the plane has much less influence than the service levels (at the airport and onboard) that the airline wants to provide.

I have seen 753 with 273 pax being turned around in less than 45 minutes and seen 763 with less seats take longer, because the product is different, the cleaning standard is different, the catering is different, the expected appearance of the cabin is different for the new passengers to enter.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1396
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:32 pm

I saw UA is introducing a premium heavy 767 w 167 seats. Could this be an indication of how carriers aim to use the 797?
 
morrisond
Posts: 1178
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:37 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
keesje wrote:

I wonder about that. If you have a narrow aisle & someone is doing his luggage, everybody waits. Also on a twin aisles. Is everybody would be able to pass each other comfortably, all the time, that could make a huge difference. Also for people getting in and out of seats. The ~10 inch wider fuselage would allow direct aisle access 1-2-1 or 1-1-1 in front and offer better stiffness for fuselages up to 270 seats. And carry more AKH containers than a same seat capacity 2-3-2 fuselage.

Image


Keesje - how big is your Cross Section? Are you assuming 10" wider than A320 and circular? So a 166" Circle? That gives a cross section area of 21,672"Sq - Versus an 170"x188" Oval at 25,101"Sq - or 15.8% more for 16.7% more Y seats and 25-50% more premium seats.

How would that be better than a tight light 7W?

Just Visualize that in your head - Picture you are sitting in an A320 - for an extra 11" width on each side (hold your hands up and spread them 11" farther apart - it's really marginal) - for that you get an extra row and an extra Y seat and a 22" wider Container, which gives you about 50% more cargo volume than an A320 for every meter of Fuselage length.

If you hold Fuselage height to your same 166" - the Oval is only 13.1% more cross section surface area.

And in either circumstance what is the increase in weight? the issue really isn't in cross sectional area especially for these short missions. It also strikes me that neglecting to look at weight would show that the savings one might be able to attribute to lower surface area would simply be eaten by additional surface area required on the wings.

Fred


Assuming the same passenger capacity - the weight per seat could potentially be better for NSA (than an 321XLR). It could have a shorter fuselage which should be more weight efficient per meter and the inherent stiffness of Carbon should help as well.

A Modern Carbon tail and nose section should beat A320 as well.

The big question would be wingbox/wing size - those could be a lot heavier - but that depends on design range. I'm sure the NMA wing will be bigger - but it might be sized to fit in Group III gates (Max 36M Width) with the tips folded - call it 42/43M extended so not that much heavier. The 757 Makes do with a 38m wing and gets all it's control surfaces within the 38m - so a 42/43m wing should be doable.

The 763ER uses a 48M wing with a MTOW of 187T - If Boeing designs for Group IV they should be able to fit within a 52M wingspan restriction without folding tips. If folding you could be looking at a at a 58-59M wing which given that the 787 is 60m that seems a little much as NMA should be around 50-60% of the MTOW of the 787.

With the retirement of most of the fleet of Airplanes that use Class IV gates lot's of space should be available - however I'm sure Airlines would love the operational flexibility of Class III.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1178
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:40 pm

seahawk wrote:
Carlos01 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The turnaround time won´t be much different. More seats mean more seats to clean, more food to restock, more trash to take out.

Sure a FR or U2 like operation could probably squeeze a few minutes out of the process, but I doubt they are seen as operators for the plane. And once you get premium class seats and catering in the plane, restocking and cleaning those alone will eat up any advantage.


From the point a narrowbody plane connects to the airbridge, it takes normally 20-30 minutes for the boarding to start for the next flight. This includes unloading anything below deck, refueling, recycling, cleaning, catering, potentially a crew change. If the plane has 20-30% more seats but 2 aisles, I don't see anything there why it would take longer, also nothing why it would be considerably quicker. At least the twin-aisle will not make it more difficult, and if they have to add a handful of people for the cleaning crew for 10 minutes, I doubt it costs a lot.....


I thin we all agree that the 797 will offer much better passenger comfort and a much more pleasant onboard experience compared to a cramped Airbus, but I still believe that turn around time is overrated and the plane has much less influence than the service levels (at the airport and onboard) that the airline wants to provide.

I have seen 753 with 273 pax being turned around in less than 45 minutes and seen 763 with less seats take longer, because the product is different, the cleaning standard is different, the catering is different, the expected appearance of the cabin is different for the new passengers to enter.


Rather than turn around time - I think the better argument for a tight light 7W is up to 50% more premium seats (2x2x2 Domestic Business Class, 1x1x1 First Class sleepers) and 50%+ more cargo volume per meter of fuselage length leaving more space in the belly for cargo as the passenger bags will fit in fewer containers.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Mar 05, 2019 4:27 pm

Pardon if this has been discussed before but is there any consideration for placing the passenger door further aft? As I recall on DC-10's and L-1011's , FC passengers turned left, Coach to the right. Coupled with 2 aisles, that's got to be quicker no? I ask having just flown on a loaded A321 waaayyy back in Coach.
300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17684
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:54 pm

Revelation wrote:
seabosdca wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
That is certainly one factor, as 7- abreast haa the fewest seats per aisle, and hence will have the fastest turnaround times of any common configuration. But that is important only on very short routes, where the plane makes multiple stops per day. And that is not the market that NMA is targeting.

We'll see. If NMA comes in two variants as has been widely speculated, I could imagine quite a few copies of the larger one spending their lives flying 2-hour missions in Europe and the Far East. It's about time for a new Kontschaufel -- the A300 got too expensive to fly compared with the A321/739, but nothing quite does what it did for airlines like LH, TG, and even AA.

I think you should add USA and Australia to your list to places where NMA might be used on ~2 hour missions:

:arrow: DL's CEO says he wants DL to be the launch customer and the reason is obvious, their hub is the world's busiest airport

:arrow: QF's CEO specifically mentioned applying NMA to the SYD-MEL-BNE routes.

Both of these airlines are already A321 customers (QF via Jetstar). :scratchchin:

Image

Ack! My brain is frying. Is Boeing promising such a light NMA it overcomes engines optimized for longer missions? A la NEO (engines optimized for 2 hours, flown shorter often)?

With CFRP, designing for 60,000 FC is easy (787 LOV 66,000 FC). The wings do better to (787 200,000 FH, I expect less for NMA to save certification schedule).

Hmm....

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2792
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:22 pm

morrisond wrote:

Assuming the same passenger capacity - the weight per seat could potentially be better for NSA (than an 321XLR). It could have a shorter fuselage which should be more weight efficient per meter and the inherent stiffness of Carbon should help as well.
I'm not sure that the A321 is in a regime where the bending moment caused by the length of the fuselage is the dominating/limiting factor. The weights of both the A321 and the shorter MOM would be dominated by the pressurization loads. pressurisation loads and the hoop stresses are driven by diameter^2 so if an increase in diameter inst mirrored by a useful increase in floor area utilization then the fuselage will necessarily be higher weight for a given floor area and tech level.
morrisond wrote:

A Modern Carbon tail and nose section should beat A320 as well.
Agreed, not that it needs to be carbon but that modern aerodynamics would suggest a slightly differnt nose profile especially if it is to go at higher mach numbers.
morrisond wrote:

The big question would be wingbox/wing size - those could be a lot heavier - but that depends on design range. I'm sure the NMA wing will be bigger - but it might be sized to fit in Group III gates (Max 36M Width) with the tips folded - call it 42/43M extended so not that much heavier. The 757 Makes do with a 38m wing and gets all it's control surfaces within the 38m - so a 42/43m wing should be doable.
For a geometrically similar wing the main drivers in weight changes are span^2, MZFW and inversely with thickness. At a given wing area and form the weight would effectively change weight as a function of AR^3
morrisond wrote:

The 763ER uses a 48M wing with a MTOW of 187T - If Boeing designs for Group IV they should be able to fit within a 52M wingspan restriction without folding tips. If folding you could be looking at a at a 58-59M wing which given that the 787 is 60m that seems a little much as NMA should be around 50-60% of the MTOW of the 787.
I wouldn't expect anything nearly as high as even 48m, 42-44 would be my guess for something around 145-150t MTOW.

Fred
Image
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1111
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:31 am

The 797-6 will have enough range to do SEA-NRT.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2242
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:35 pm

SteelChair wrote:
Anyone ever ridden on a 753, also known as the "slave ship?" 230-240 people disembarking through one aisle is a nightmare. Judah Ben Hur had a better ride in the bowels of that galley chained to his oar. Two aisles definitely speeds the boarding and deboarding process.


But that is as much due to archaic airport procedures as anything else.

If they had stairs to both the fore and aft doors, you have a quasi-twin aisle.


Also worth remembering, airlines requested Airbus delete the L2 door on the A321 for more seats. Using the L2 door as main entry/egress point would speed up boarding times - therefore in terms of airline priorities - boarding time would appear to not surpass seat density.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1178
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:50 pm

flipdewaf wrote:

The 763ER uses a 48M wing with a MTOW of 187T - If Boeing designs for Group IV they should be able to fit within a 52M wingspan restriction without folding tips. If folding you could be looking at a at a 58-59M wing which given that the 787 is 60m that seems a little much as NMA should be around 50-60% of the MTOW of the 787.
I wouldn't expect anything nearly as high as even 48m, 42-44 would be my guess for something around 145-150t MTOW.

Fred[/quote]

That would be my guess on wing length as well - 42-44m - whatever they can fit into a Group III gate at 36m when folded. I think the MTOW weights are going to be a lot lower though. It will be hard to get Wide body comfort at single aisle efficiency at MTOW's 50% bigger than A321, unless the seating capacity was 50% more than A321 - but that would put it into the size of the 788.

I would guess the smallest NMA (call it A321 Capacity) wouldn't be much more than 120T MTOW but with 15-20% more range than A321XLR

NMA medium (A321 plus 30-40 seats) about the same weight and about the same range as A321XLR.

Then later a larger NMA-ER (A321 + 60-70 seats, call it 300-320 Single class) in the 135-145T MTOW range and hence the need for the 50K engines with a range similar to NMA - Small.

Of course all pure speculation at this point.
 
Flaps
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2000 1:11 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:11 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Anyone ever ridden on a 753, also known as the "slave ship?" 230-240 people disembarking through one aisle is a nightmare. Judah Ben Hur had a better ride in the bowels of that galley chained to his oar. Two aisles definitely speeds the boarding and deboarding process.


But that is as much due to archaic airport procedures as anything else.

If they had stairs to both the fore and aft doors, you have a quasi-twin aisle.


Also worth remembering, airlines requested Airbus delete the L2 door on the A321 for more seats. Using the L2 door as main entry/egress point would speed up boarding times - therefore in terms of airline priorities - boarding time would appear to not surpass seat density.


The L2 door on the 321 is too close to the engine for many/most jetbridge operations.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1394
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:43 am

A Flightglobal article, Udvar-Hazy was also out front and center just before the 787 launch. He seems to be indicating a bit more distance between the two models. If the larger model grew a couple of rows it would be the 783 the Japanese airlines wanted.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -u-456401/
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20919
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:33 am

Reuters: Air Lease says Boeing signaling 'full speed ahead' for midsized jet says:

“Boeing is signaling full speed ahead but there’s still a lot to be decided in these programs,” Air Lease Corp’s chief executive, John Plueger said at a conference, noting the company had met with Boeing in Seattle on Friday.

So we now have Air Lease Corp’s chief executive John Plueger and Air Lease Executive Chairman Steven Udvar-Hazy saying positive things about the program moving forward after meeting with Boeing. Hopefully we won't hear some lame rejoinder about them being in Seattle to visit Starbucks and deciding to pay a call on Boeing.
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
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1394
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:18 am

DL is indicating a probable order, ALC is indicating they want the plane, RR indicating they are out, elements falling into place. But no ATO, so no proposals - yet. It is not far off.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13027
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:24 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
A Flightglobal article, Udvar-Hazy was also out front and center just before the 787 launch. He seems to be indicating a bit more distance between the two models. If the larger model grew a couple of rows it would be the 783 the Japanese airlines wanted.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -u-456401/



"Some of the Asian airlines are less interested in range and more interested in a higher capacity version, delivering the most optimal economic performance," Udvar-Hazy says. "Ultimately, I think it's driving towards two different models. Boeing will have to address which comes first."

I assume a super efficient high capacity aircraft for up to 3000NM will be sold in far buigger numbers than the project medium, up to 5000NM flights. I expect nothing else than a shorter longer range and longer shorter range varianrt of any possible aircraft in this segment.

The airframer maintains that, if it launches the new aircraft, the type would debut in 2025.

:scratchchin: "debut" is that first flight, type certificate or entry into service? Weasel talk coming in, to smooth out an almost certain EIS delay. :wink2:

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13027
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:58 am

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
keesje wrote:

I wonder about that. If you have a narrow aisle & someone is doing his luggage, everybody waits. Also on a twin aisles. Is everybody would be able to pass each other comfortably, all the time, that could make a huge difference. Also for people getting in and out of seats. The ~10 inch wider fuselage would allow direct aisle access 1-2-1 or 1-1-1 in front and offer better stiffness for fuselages up to 270 seats. And carry more AKH containers than a same seat capacity 2-3-2 fuselage.

Image


Keesje - how big is your Cross Section? Are you assuming 10" wider than A320 and circular? So a 166" Circle? That gives a cross section area of 21,672"Sq - Versus an 170"x188" Oval at 25,101"Sq - or 15.8% more for 16.7% more Y seats and 25-50% more premium seats.

How would that be better than a tight light 7W?

Just Visualize that in your head - Picture you are sitting in an A320 - for an extra 11" width on each side (hold your hands up and spread them 11" farther apart - it's really marginal) - for that you get an extra row and an extra Y seat and a 22" wider Container, which gives you about 50% more cargo volume than an A320 for every meter of Fuselage length.

If you hold Fuselage height to your same 166" - the Oval is only 13.1% more cross section surface area.

And in either circumstance what is the increase in weight? the issue really isn't in cross sectional area especially for these short missions. It also strikes me that neglecting to look at weight would show that the savings one might be able to attribute to lower surface area would simply be eaten by additional surface area required on the wings.

Fred



Keesje - how big is your Cross Section? Are you assuming 10" wider than A320 and circular? So a 166" Circle? That gives a cross section area of 21,672"Sq - Versus an 170"x188" Oval at 25,101"Sq - or 15.8% more for 16.7% more Y seats and 25-50% more premium seats.

How would that be better than a tight light 7W?


Morrisond, I think we need to assume, same seat width, minimal aisle idth and same advanced materials for any comparison of a new aircraft. In that case an oval fusalge is heavier than a circular and 7 abreast +2 aisles creates cargo room that doesn't lead to more AKH capability. Less even because a 7 abreast will be shorter at same seat capacity.

Premium seats / long haul business class have to have direct aisle access these days. I wonder how a wider nma would efficiently beat 1-2-1.

Image

I assumed the inner cros section at around 154 inch, circular, to keep weight down and offer 18 inch wide seats including honest armrests in economy class for longer flights. Without wasting to much space / cross on the lower deck with industry standard reduced height LD3-45 containers. All as lean and light as possible, for up to ~300 seats single class.

Fred, OEW for the longest version should still be under ~70t because of the conservative cross section design and new materials. .

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1908/45573445721_b149de2b3d_b.jpg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:23 am

Revelation wrote:
Reuters: Air Lease says Boeing signaling 'full speeds ahead' for midsized jet says:

“Boeing is signaling full speed ahead but there’s still a lot to be decided in these programs,” Air Lease Corp’s chief executive, John Plueger said at a conference, noting the company had met with Boeing in Seattle on Friday.

So we now have Air Lease Corp’s chief executive John Plueger and Air Lease Executive Chairman Steven Udvar-Hazy saying positive things about the program moving forward after meeting with Boeing. Hopefully we won't hear some lame rejoinder about them being in Seattle to visit Starbucks and deciding to pay a call on Boeing.


Clearest sign yet that program is just FUD and everyone should just order A321’s.
 
Miquel787
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:11 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:44 am

U turn Al ( Qatar) said that he wasn.t interested in the NMA..Didn.t he say that also about the 777X and ended up ordering 60 of them?Lol
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2792
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:19 pm

keesje wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Keesje - how big is your Cross Section? Are you assuming 10" wider than A320 and circular? So a 166" Circle? That gives a cross section area of 21,672"Sq - Versus an 170"x188" Oval at 25,101"Sq - or 15.8% more for 16.7% more Y seats and 25-50% more premium seats.

How would that be better than a tight light 7W?

Just Visualize that in your head - Picture you are sitting in an A320 - for an extra 11" width on each side (hold your hands up and spread them 11" farther apart - it's really marginal) - for that you get an extra row and an extra Y seat and a 22" wider Container, which gives you about 50% more cargo volume than an A320 for every meter of Fuselage length.

If you hold Fuselage height to your same 166" - the Oval is only 13.1% more cross section surface area.

And in either circumstance what is the increase in weight? the issue really isn't in cross sectional area especially for these short missions. It also strikes me that neglecting to look at weight would show that the savings one might be able to attribute to lower surface area would simply be eaten by additional surface area required on the wings.

Fred



Keesje - how big is your Cross Section? Are you assuming 10" wider than A320 and circular? So a 166" Circle? That gives a cross section area of 21,672"Sq - Versus an 170"x188" Oval at 25,101"Sq - or 15.8% more for 16.7% more Y seats and 25-50% more premium seats.

How would that be better than a tight light 7W?


Morrisond, I think we need to assume, same seat width, minimal aisle idth and same advanced materials for any comparison of a new aircraft. In that case an oval fusalge is heavier than a circular and 7 abreast +2 aisles creates cargo room that doesn't lead to more AKH capability. Less even because a 7 abreast will be shorter at same seat capacity.

Premium seats / long haul business class have to have direct aisle access these days. I wonder how a wider nma would efficiently beat 1-2-1.

Image

I assumed the inner cros section at around 154 inch, circular, to keep weight down and offer 18 inch wide seats including honest armrests in economy class for longer flights. Without wasting to much space / cross on the lower deck with industry standard reduced height LD3-45 containers. All as lean and light as possible, for up to ~300 seats single class.

Fred, OEW for the longest version should still be under ~70t because of the conservative cross section design and new materials. .

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1908/45573445721_b149de2b3d_b.jpg


I'll run some numbers when not so busy at work (if I can get wifi 17hrs from LHR-PER will be the place to do some fun crunching)

The issue as you highlighted above is that the oval 7 abreast is going to be heavier than circular 7 abreast. What the oval would give you is reduced surface area per seat, a saving on drag but increasing weight for reducing drag is something you would expect for a long(er) range jet which then flies in the face of the fast turnaround of the twin aisle which is being talked about in side by side sentences almost. One can't have one's cake and eat it too.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13027
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:03 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
keesje wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
And in either circumstance what is the increase in weight? the issue really isn't in cross sectional area especially for these short missions. It also strikes me that neglecting to look at weight would show that the savings one might be able to attribute to lower surface area would simply be eaten by additional surface area required on the wings.

Fred



Keesje - how big is your Cross Section? Are you assuming 10" wider than A320 and circular? So a 166" Circle? That gives a cross section area of 21,672"Sq - Versus an 170"x188" Oval at 25,101"Sq - or 15.8% more for 16.7% more Y seats and 25-50% more premium seats.

How would that be better than a tight light 7W?


Morrisond, I think we need to assume, same seat width, minimal aisle idth and same advanced materials for any comparison of a new aircraft. In that case an oval fusalge is heavier than a circular and 7 abreast +2 aisles creates cargo room that doesn't lead to more AKH capability. Less even because a 7 abreast will be shorter at same seat capacity.

Premium seats / long haul business class have to have direct aisle access these days. I wonder how a wider nma would efficiently beat 1-2-1.

Image

I assumed the inner cros section at around 154 inch, circular, to keep weight down and offer 18 inch wide seats including honest armrests in economy class for longer flights. Without wasting to much space / cross on the lower deck with industry standard reduced height LD3-45 containers. All as lean and light as possible, for up to ~300 seats single class.

Fred, OEW for the longest version should still be under ~70t because of the conservative cross section design and new materials. .

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1908/45573445721_b149de2b3d_b.jpg


I'll run some numbers when not so busy at work (if I can get wifi 17hrs from LHR-PER will be the place to do some fun crunching)

The issue as you highlighted above is that the oval 7 abreast is going to be heavier than circular 7 abreast. What the oval would give you is reduced surface area per seat, a saving on drag but increasing weight for reducing drag is something you would expect for a long(er) range jet which then flies in the face of the fast turnaround of the twin aisle which is being talked about in side by side sentences almost. One can't have one's cake and eat it too.

Fred


Fred thank would be great. It can be inspiring to be off-line, relying on your unrestricted analogue brainwaves over a longer time period, with wine.. :wink2:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13027
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:12 pm

Revelation wrote:
Reuters: Air Lease says Boeing signaling 'full speed ahead' for midsized jet says:

“Boeing is signaling full speed ahead but there’s still a lot to be decided in these programs,” Air Lease Corp’s chief executive, John Plueger said at a conference, noting the company had met with Boeing in Seattle on Friday.

So we now have Air Lease Corp’s chief executive John Plueger and Air Lease Executive Chairman Steven Udvar-Hazy saying positive things about the program moving forward after meeting with Boeing. Hopefully we won't hear some lame rejoinder about them being in Seattle to visit Starbucks and deciding to pay a call on Boeing.



Air Lease Corp. CEO Steven Udvar-Hazy told Bloomberg: “We’re in very active discussions with Boeing on the ultimate replacement for the 757,” adding that Boeing is “well aware of our requirements.”
........... http://fortune.com/2015/06/17/new-boeing-jet/ June 2015.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
morrisond
Posts: 1178
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:48 pm

keesje wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Keesje - how big is your Cross Section? Are you assuming 10" wider than A320 and circular? So a 166" Circle? That gives a cross section area of 21,672"Sq - Versus an 170"x188" Oval at 25,101"Sq - or 15.8% more for 16.7% more Y seats and 25-50% more premium seats.

How would that be better than a tight light 7W?

Just Visualize that in your head - Picture you are sitting in an A320 - for an extra 11" width on each side (hold your hands up and spread them 11" farther apart - it's really marginal) - for that you get an extra row and an extra Y seat and a 22" wider Container, which gives you about 50% more cargo volume than an A320 for every meter of Fuselage length.

If you hold Fuselage height to your same 166" - the Oval is only 13.1% more cross section surface area.

And in either circumstance what is the increase in weight? the issue really isn't in cross sectional area especially for these short missions. It also strikes me that neglecting to look at weight would show that the savings one might be able to attribute to lower surface area would simply be eaten by additional surface area required on the wings.

Fred



Keesje - how big is your Cross Section? Are you assuming 10" wider than A320 and circular? So a 166" Circle? That gives a cross section area of 21,672"Sq - Versus an 170"x188" Oval at 25,101"Sq - or 15.8% more for 16.7% more Y seats and 25-50% more premium seats.

How would that be better than a tight light 7W?


Morrisond, I think we need to assume, same seat width, minimal aisle idth and same advanced materials for any comparison of a new aircraft. In that case an oval fusalge is heavier than a circular and 7 abreast +2 aisles creates cargo room that doesn't lead to more AKH capability. Less even because a 7 abreast will be shorter at same seat capacity.

Premium seats / long haul business class have to have direct aisle access these days. I wonder how a wider nma would efficiently beat 1-2-1.

Image

I assumed the inner cros section at around 154 inch, circular, to keep weight down and offer 18 inch wide seats including honest armrests in economy class for longer flights. Without wasting to much space / cross on the lower deck with industry standard reduced height LD3-45 containers. All as lean and light as possible, for up to ~300 seats single class.

Fred, OEW for the longest version should still be under ~70t because of the conservative cross section design and new materials. .

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1908/45573445721_b149de2b3d_b.jpg


I thought your Single Aisle concept was all about the wide center aisle for faster deplaneing? At 154" internal that is not far off 166" external - so why would your cross section weigh less per seat than a tight/light 7W? It's cross section is only 15% less than my concept

Why wouldn't a wider cross section lead to more Cargo Capacity. Boeing would be idiotic not to take advantage of the extra width. There is no regulation they must stick to AKH's. I'm assuming that Boeing adopts a new Container that is about 28" wider than an LD3-45 and call it 7" higher. That gives you about 50% more cargo volume in every container for 60.5" in container/fuselage length. In premium - yes you probably don't save any Hold length for premium passengeers assuming 50% more premium seats (2x2x2 Domestic Business which would be fine for a lot of carriers or 1x2x1 sleepers) - however in the back where there would only be 16.7% more y seats (same Y+ assuming 2x2x2) you need a lot fewer containers to carry baggage - as there are usually a lot more Y/Y+ seats on most aircraft that leads to a lot of extra space in the belly even with a shorter fuselage length.

It's not really a big deal for Boeing to adopt a new container - especially if they reuse the cross section for NSA. It would still take LD3-45's if that's what Airlines wanted - Call it a cut down LD2- 12" shorter in Height 124" wide an LD2-52 - so the width would fit in 767 as well.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8510
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:04 pm

The 797 enjoys a 40 years technology advantage over the existing single aisle competition, it should be not depending on the container size to beat the competition with ease. And that is what the NMA/NSA combination will do.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13027
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:24 pm

morrisond wrote:
keesje wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
And in either circumstance what is the increase in weight? the issue really isn't in cross sectional area especially for these short missions. It also strikes me that neglecting to look at weight would show that the savings one might be able to attribute to lower surface area would simply be eaten by additional surface area required on the wings.

Fred



Keesje - how big is your Cross Section? Are you assuming 10" wider than A320 and circular? So a 166" Circle? That gives a cross section area of 21,672"Sq - Versus an 170"x188" Oval at 25,101"Sq - or 15.8% more for 16.7% more Y seats and 25-50% more premium seats.

How would that be better than a tight light 7W?


Morrisond, I think we need to assume, same seat width, minimal aisle idth and same advanced materials for any comparison of a new aircraft. In that case an oval fusalge is heavier than a circular and 7 abreast +2 aisles creates cargo room that doesn't lead to more AKH capability. Less even because a 7 abreast will be shorter at same seat capacity.

Premium seats / long haul business class have to have direct aisle access these days. I wonder how a wider nma would efficiently beat 1-2-1.

Image

I assumed the inner cros section at around 154 inch, circular, to keep weight down and offer 18 inch wide seats including honest armrests in economy class for longer flights. Without wasting to much space / cross on the lower deck with industry standard reduced height LD3-45 containers. All as lean and light as possible, for up to ~300 seats single class.

Fred, OEW for the longest version should still be under ~70t because of the conservative cross section design and new materials. .

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1908/45573445721_b149de2b3d_b.jpg


I thought your Single Aisle concept was all about the wide center aisle for faster deplaneing? At 154" internal that is not far off 166" external - so why would your cross section weigh less per seat than a tight/light 7W? It's cross section is only 15% less than my concept

Why wouldn't a wider cross section lead to more Cargo Capacity. Boeing would be idiotic not to take advantage of the extra width. There is no regulation they must stick to AKH's. I'm assuming that Boeing adopts a new Container that is about 28" wider than an LD3-45 and call it 7" higher. That gives you about 50% more cargo volume in every container for 60.5" in container/fuselage length. In premium - yes you probably don't save any Hold length for premium passengeers assuming 50% more premium seats (2x2x2 Domestic Business which would be fine for a lot of carriers or 1x2x1 sleepers) - however in the back where there would only be 16.7% more y seats (same Y+ assuming 2x2x2) you need a lot fewer containers to carry baggage - as there are usually a lot more Y/Y+ seats on most aircraft that leads to a lot of extra space in the belly even with a shorter fuselage length.

It's not really a big deal for Boeing to adopt a new container - especially if they reuse the cross section for NSA. It would still take LD3-45's if that's what Airlines wanted - Call it a cut down LD2- 12" shorter in Height 124" wide an LD2-52 - so the width would fit in 767 as well.


Hi morrisond, I think we should use same seat space specification for an objective configuration comparisons. Not ultra small ones on one, spacious on the other.

It's not really a big deal for Boeing to adopt a new container. But the ones paying all the salaries, mortgages and dividends at Boeing are the airlines. And they massively use AKH's in Europe and Asia on thousdands of aircraft, representing by far the biggest market potential. Ignoring the container standard would make many key customers very unhappy & reduce NMA resale value. Boeing has hinted at "single-aisle-sized cargo hold" capability and AKH are on all possible cross sections I've seen. As well as on C919 & MS-21..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
morrisond
Posts: 1178
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:43 pm

keesje wrote:
morrisond wrote:
keesje wrote:




Morrisond, I think we need to assume, same seat width, minimal aisle idth and same advanced materials for any comparison of a new aircraft. In that case an oval fusalge is heavier than a circular and 7 abreast +2 aisles creates cargo room that doesn't lead to more AKH capability. Less even because a 7 abreast will be shorter at same seat capacity.

Premium seats / long haul business class have to have direct aisle access these days. I wonder how a wider nma would efficiently beat 1-2-1.

Image

I assumed the inner cros section at around 154 inch, circular, to keep weight down and offer 18 inch wide seats including honest armrests in economy class for longer flights. Without wasting to much space / cross on the lower deck with industry standard reduced height LD3-45 containers. All as lean and light as possible, for up to ~300 seats single class.

Fred, OEW for the longest version should still be under ~70t because of the conservative cross section design and new materials. .

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1908/45573445721_b149de2b3d_b.jpg


I thought your Single Aisle concept was all about the wide center aisle for faster deplaneing? At 154" internal that is not far off 166" external - so why would your cross section weigh less per seat than a tight/light 7W? It's cross section is only 15% less than my concept

Why wouldn't a wider cross section lead to more Cargo Capacity. Boeing would be idiotic not to take advantage of the extra width. There is no regulation they must stick to AKH's. I'm assuming that Boeing adopts a new Container that is about 28" wider than an LD3-45 and call it 7" higher. That gives you about 50% more cargo volume in every container for 60.5" in container/fuselage length. In premium - yes you probably don't save any Hold length for premium passengeers assuming 50% more premium seats (2x2x2 Domestic Business which would be fine for a lot of carriers or 1x2x1 sleepers) - however in the back where there would only be 16.7% more y seats (same Y+ assuming 2x2x2) you need a lot fewer containers to carry baggage - as there are usually a lot more Y/Y+ seats on most aircraft that leads to a lot of extra space in the belly even with a shorter fuselage length.

It's not really a big deal for Boeing to adopt a new container - especially if they reuse the cross section for NSA. It would still take LD3-45's if that's what Airlines wanted - Call it a cut down LD2- 12" shorter in Height 124" wide an LD2-52 - so the width would fit in 767 as well.


Hi morrisond, I think we should use same seat space specification for an objective configuration comparisons. Not ultra small ones on one, spacious on the other.

It's not really a big deal for Boeing to adopt a new container. But the ones paying all the salaries, mortgages and dividends at Boeing are the airlines. And they massively use AKH's in Europe and Asia on thousdands of aircraft, representing by far the biggest market potential. Ignoring the container standard would make many key customers very unhappy & reduce NMA resale value. Boeing has hinted at "single-aisle-sized cargo hold" capability and AKH are on all possible cross sections I've seen. As well as on C919 & MS-21..


I get it and there is no reason you won't be able to put an AKH in an NMA - but why would you design the belly to only take an AKH when it could take something a lot wider easily? The cost in structure would be minimal if anything at all.

Airlines that have a large installed fleet of A320 may choose to use only AKH's for cross compatibility but what about all the other airlines that aren't using AKH's already - Boeing only 737 customers - there sure are a lot of those and if they run a mixed fleet they can't use AKH's in 737 anyways so they are running into issues.

A wider hold in NMA would give them the ability to use a new container or AKH's - what is so hard with that concept?

What else would you use the belly space in an 7W NMA that could only take AKH's for? Are you assuming that if NMA is 8W it only takes AKH's as well?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13027
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 5:02 pm

morrisond wrote:
keesje wrote:
morrisond wrote:

I thought your Single Aisle concept was all about the wide center aisle for faster deplaneing? At 154" internal that is not far off 166" external - so why would your cross section weigh less per seat than a tight/light 7W? It's cross section is only 15% less than my concept

Why wouldn't a wider cross section lead to more Cargo Capacity. Boeing would be idiotic not to take advantage of the extra width. There is no regulation they must stick to AKH's. I'm assuming that Boeing adopts a new Container that is about 28" wider than an LD3-45 and call it 7" higher. That gives you about 50% more cargo volume in every container for 60.5" in container/fuselage length. In premium - yes you probably don't save any Hold length for premium passengeers assuming 50% more premium seats (2x2x2 Domestic Business which would be fine for a lot of carriers or 1x2x1 sleepers) - however in the back where there would only be 16.7% more y seats (same Y+ assuming 2x2x2) you need a lot fewer containers to carry baggage - as there are usually a lot more Y/Y+ seats on most aircraft that leads to a lot of extra space in the belly even with a shorter fuselage length.

It's not really a big deal for Boeing to adopt a new container - especially if they reuse the cross section for NSA. It would still take LD3-45's if that's what Airlines wanted - Call it a cut down LD2- 12" shorter in Height 124" wide an LD2-52 - so the width would fit in 767 as well.


Hi morrisond, I think we should use same seat space specification for an objective configuration comparisons. Not ultra small ones on one, spacious on the other.

It's not really a big deal for Boeing to adopt a new container. But the ones paying all the salaries, mortgages and dividends at Boeing are the airlines. And they massively use AKH's in Europe and Asia on thousdands of aircraft, representing by far the biggest market potential. Ignoring the container standard would make many key customers very unhappy & reduce NMA resale value. Boeing has hinted at "single-aisle-sized cargo hold" capability and AKH are on all possible cross sections I've seen. As well as on C919 & MS-21..


I get it and there is no reason you won't be able to put an AKH in an NMA - but why would you design the belly to only take an AKH when it could take something a lot wider easily? The cost in structure would be minimal if anything at all.

Airlines that have a large installed fleet of A320 may choose to use only AKH's for cross compatibility but what about all the other airlines that aren't using AKH's already - Boeing only 737 customers - there sure are a lot of those and if they run a mixed fleet they can't use AKH's in 737 anyways so they are running into issues.

A wider hold in NMA would give them the ability to use a new container or AKH's - what is so hard with that concept?

What else would you use the belly space in an 7W NMA that could only take AKH's for? Are you assuming that if NMA is 8W it only takes AKH's as well?


A hold that can hold AKH, bulk or something bigger, or all at the same ship would probably be best. Many airlines combine both. E.g aft container, front bulk. It could even be possible to use a more flexible container that uses the space when available. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1411903&p=21084819&hilit=akh#p21084819
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
2175301
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 5:18 pm

Back to the overall topic of what is likely to happen in the next year: I believe (based on my source) that Boeing will "offer" the MOM (797) before the end of April this year (2019).

Program launch next year is dependent on the number of conditional orders they get and at what price during the "offer" phase. Talk does not always reflect reality. Lets see how many airlines are willing to sign contracts that would be binding if the MOM is launched.

It is my understanding that part of the current discussion within Boeing at this time is a smaller number of aircraft at a higher price, vs a larger number of aircraft at a lower price (less markup). What is the market really interested in.

At the same time, it is my understanding that they now have well over 1000 engineers working on final design and production cost reduction; which will help Boeing offer the MOM at the lowest reasonable cost possible - and keep things on track for EIS of 2025. The reason Boeing is confident of EIS in 2025 is because they are already several years into the project and it is my understanding that the basic frame and key structural elements have already been designed. A few tweaks may come up in the future. But, they feel that they are at year 2 or 3 of past development cycles.

Have a great day,
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 5:22 pm

2175301 wrote:
Back to the overall topic of what is likely to happen in the next year: I believe (based on my source) that Boeing will "offer" the MOM (797) before the end of April this year (2019).

Program launch next year is dependent on the number of conditional orders they get and at what price during the "offer" phase. Talk does not always reflect reality. Lets see how many airlines are willing to sign contracts that would be binding if the MOM is launched.

It is my understanding that part of the current discussion within Boeing at this time is a smaller number of aircraft at a higher price, vs a larger number of aircraft at a lower price (less markup). What is the market really interested in.

At the same time, it is my understanding that they now have well over 1000 engineers working on final design and production cost reduction; which will help Boeing offer the MOM at the lowest reasonable cost possible - and keep things on track for EIS of 2025. The reason Boeing is confident of EIS in 2025 is because they are already several years into the project and it is my understanding that the basic frame and key structural elements have already been designed. A few tweaks may come up in the future. But, they feel that they are at year 2 or 3 of past development cycles.

Have a great day,


Boeing is internally already taking to people in supplier management and global services about joining the program so it’s well along.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20919
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 5:45 pm

2175301 wrote:
Back to the overall topic of what is likely to happen in the next year.

Nah, we haven't talked about containers and cross sections enough yet.

2175301 wrote:
It is my understanding that part of the current discussion within Boeing at this time is a smaller number of aircraft at a higher price, vs a larger number of aircraft at a lower price (less markup). What is the market really interested in.

This corroborates the last Leeham report: the main debate internally is the best way to get to the profit margin the company feels it needs.

2175301 wrote:
At the same time, it is my understanding that they now have well over 1000 engineers working on final design and production cost reduction; which will help Boeing offer the MOM at the lowest reasonable cost possible - and keep things on track for EIS of 2025. The reason Boeing is confident of EIS in 2025 is because they are already several years into the project and it is my understanding that the basic frame and key structural elements have already been designed. A few tweaks may come up in the future. But, they feel that they are at year 2 or 3 of past development cycles.

Some will be sad to hear that all the containers and cross section decisions have already been made so their valuable input is all in vain.

Hint: It's going to be an ovoid. Everyone who has been briefed by Boeing has said it is an ovoid. No one has said it will be a bendy narrow body.
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
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:02 pm

Revelation wrote:
Reuters: Air Lease says Boeing signaling 'full speed ahead' for midsized jet says:

“Boeing is signaling full speed ahead but there’s still a lot to be decided in these programs,” Air Lease Corp’s chief executive, John Plueger said at a conference, noting the company had met with Boeing in Seattle on Friday.

So we now have Air Lease Corp’s chief executive John Plueger and Air Lease Executive Chairman Steven Udvar-Hazy saying positive things about the program moving forward after meeting with Boeing. Hopefully we won't hear some lame rejoinder about them being in Seattle to visit Starbucks and deciding to pay a call on Boeing.

With my best (?) Hercule Poirot imitation, "Mais non. mon ami. They were in Seattle to visit Amazon about their fleet requirements, and stopped by Boeing on their way back to the airport but only because it was on the way."
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:29 pm

Revelation wrote:
Hint: It's going to be an ovoid. Everyone who has been briefed by Boeing has said it is an ovoid. No one has said it will be a bendy narrow body.


But what if this is misdirection and we've all been looking at the ovoid the WRONG WAY?

Think two passenger decks at 4-abreast each.

The critical a.nut market would go crazy and it would put Airbus out of business. :o
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2905
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:10 pm

2175301 wrote:
I believe (based on my source) that Boeing will "offer" the MOM (797) before the end of April this year (2019).


Do tell, did your source say how would this play out with the Paris Airshow?

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2905
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:13 pm

Bricktop wrote:
"Mais non. mon ami. They were in Seattle to visit Amazon about their fleet requirements, and stopped by Boeing on their way back to the airport but only because it was on the way."


This would only work if they were flying out of the newly opened commercial terminal at Paine Field :bigthumbsup:

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5423
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:43 pm

2175301 wrote:
Back to the overall topic of what is likely to happen in the next year: I believe (based on my source) that Boeing will "offer" the MOM (797) before the end of April this year (2019).

Program launch next year is dependent on the number of conditional orders they get and at what price during the "offer" phase. Talk does not always reflect reality. Lets see how many airlines are willing to sign contracts that would be binding if the MOM is launched.

It is my understanding that part of the current discussion within Boeing at this time is a smaller number of aircraft at a higher price, vs a larger number of aircraft at a lower price (less markup). What is the market really interested in.

At the same time, it is my understanding that they now have well over 1000 engineers working on final design and production cost reduction; which will help Boeing offer the MOM at the lowest reasonable cost possible - and keep things on track for EIS of 2025. The reason Boeing is confident of EIS in 2025 is because they are already several years into the project and it is my understanding that the basic frame and key structural elements have already been designed. A few tweaks may come up in the future. But, they feel that they are at year 2 or 3 of past development cycles.

Have a great day,

If this is indeed true then the cross section has long been finalized, and all of our discussion of it is moot. It would also seem that Boeing has gone much farther than normal without a formal launch, or even offer. Why they have done this I don’t know. But it does look to me that the chance of their pulling the plug on it at this point is somewhat on a par with me being drafted for President.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
2175301
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:11 pm

bikerthai wrote:
2175301 wrote:
I believe (based on my source) that Boeing will "offer" the MOM (797) before the end of April this year (2019).


Do tell, did your source say how would this play out with the Paris Airshow?

bt


Not a word. My source is more on the technical end than the marketing end. I know lots about what has been considered; but, no clue as to the conclusions (example: Boeing extensively modeled both metal and composite construction in far more detail than ever done before with a real focus on reducing manufacturing cost: Not a word or any hint about what material was chosen).

Have a great day,
 
2175301
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:18 pm

SEPilot wrote:
It would also seem that Boeing has gone much farther than normal without a formal launch, or even offer. Why they have done this I don’t know.


I understand that it is the combination of lessons learned from the 787 and even 737 Max programs about not really understanding the cost to construct prior to launch (very painful with the 787) and the fact that the MOM is under the best conditions a narrow market with a non-obvious business case (not saying one is not there - but, it's not super obviously a profitable niche). They really need to know - with a much less margin of error - how much the aircraft will cost to produce prior to contracts being signed and launch.

A side benefit that my contact has mentioned... that a lot of what they are learning is applicable to the future NSA. It is not just all money $ down the drain if the project does not launch.

Have a great day,
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2996
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:03 am

SEPilot wrote:
2175301 wrote:
Back to the overall topic of what is likely to happen in the next year: I believe (based on my source) that Boeing will "offer" the MOM (797) before the end of April this year (2019).

Program launch next year is dependent on the number of conditional orders they get and at what price during the "offer" phase. Talk does not always reflect reality. Lets see how many airlines are willing to sign contracts that would be binding if the MOM is launched.

It is my understanding that part of the current discussion within Boeing at this time is a smaller number of aircraft at a higher price, vs a larger number of aircraft at a lower price (less markup). What is the market really interested in.

At the same time, it is my understanding that they now have well over 1000 engineers working on final design and production cost reduction; which will help Boeing offer the MOM at the lowest reasonable cost possible - and keep things on track for EIS of 2025. The reason Boeing is confident of EIS in 2025 is because they are already several years into the project and it is my understanding that the basic frame and key structural elements have already been designed. A few tweaks may come up in the future. But, they feel that they are at year 2 or 3 of past development cycles.

Have a great day,

If this is indeed true then the cross section has long been finalized, and all of our discussion of it is moot. It would also seem that Boeing has gone much farther than normal without a formal launch, or even offer. Why they have done this I don’t know. But it does look to me that the chance of their pulling the plug on it at this point is somewhat on a par with me being drafted for President.


Another way of looking at this: it is cheaper to spend $2-5 billion and not build a plane, than to spend many more billions on a money loser. Given that the MOM is in part a dress rehearsal for the NSA it may be worth building even if it is not a big profit maker.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:20 am

SEPilot wrote:
If this is indeed true then the cross section has long been finalized, and all of our discussion of it is moot. It would also seem that Boeing has gone much farther than normal without a formal launch, or even offer. Why they have done this I don’t know. But it does look to me that the chance of their pulling the plug on it at this point is somewhat on a par with me being drafted for President.


It certainly doesn't hurt that without a formal launch it is much more difficult for Airbus to respond. As others have been pointed out the risk with a later launch is that you have spent a billion or three of cash on development for no reason. $25B+ of unexpected costs on the 787, together with many billions of free cash flow in the present day, may have put that risk into perspective.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1709
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:43 am

seahawk wrote:
The 797 enjoys a 40 years technology advantage over the existing single aisle competition, it should be not depending on the container size to beat the competition with ease.

You forget, that it needs to be competitive against same-tech-level narrowbodies, that will arrive a few years later. Your argument is as flawed as Airbus saying in 2000: the A380 will enjoy 30 year technology advantage over existing VLA competition. And yes, it did beat the 744 and even the 748i with ease. But not the upcoming same-or more-tech-level near-VLA competition.

Would not a same-tech-level launch of a 200-250 seat mid-range NB in 2030 (be it from A or B) shorten the 797s competitive life so much, that the overall market outlook becomes questionable? In 2030 the 797 factories would just have reached the planned output rates.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
Blotto
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:00 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:40 am

seabosdca wrote:
It certainly doesn't hurt that without a formal launch it is much more difficult for Airbus to respond. As others have been pointed out the risk with a later launch is that you have spent a billion or three of cash on development for no reason. $25B+ of unexpected costs on the 787, together with many billions of free cash flow in the present day, may have put that risk into perspective.


The same way Boeing works in this aircraft without a formal launch yet, Airbus works on their own future developments. There is no way Airbus doesn't know exactly what kind of competition they will face. Boeing works for the better part of this decade on the 797, that's no secret to us and certainly not to Airbus. So no, the difficulty of a response is not connected to formal announcements by Boeing.
 
User avatar
Carlos01
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:52 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:19 am

2175301 wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
It would also seem that Boeing has gone much farther than normal without a formal launch, or even offer. Why they have done this I don’t know.


I understand that it is the combination of lessons learned from the 787 and even 737 Max programs about not really understanding the cost to construct prior to launch (very painful with the 787) and the fact that the MOM is under the best conditions a narrow market with a non-obvious business case (not saying one is not there - but, it's not super obviously a profitable niche).


Then again, there is also potential upside in this. This supposed aircraft will meet the A321/73X in the lower end, and 788/A338 in the upper end, and fill the gap between the two - which is the marketed spot for it. However, that doesn't mean that it can't expand from there. There are a lot of airlines just about everywhere in the world, which could theoretically cover a wide range of their existing short-haul and long-haul routes with the 797, and on top of that still open a bunch of new ones where the 797 is at its' best. Who knows, this could be the new category aircraft that grows into a massive part of the market on its own, making all narrowbody+++XXLR -efforts pointless. Anything else needed would then be the light cityhopper-models and heavy long-haul planes for 10-20 hour flights.

Just as an example Air Baltic is an interesting modern short/medium haul airline. Their current plan is to replace ALL of their existing aircraft with the CS300 (or now A220-300). That includes Dash-8, 737-3+5, 757 (already gone), A319 (already gone). Really all of these replaced with the -300 version, not a single one of the shorter -100 models. One model is 90% good enough for everything, so why diversify and complicate everything. They have an order for 50 CS300s + 30 options. I don't find it impossible that someone would do the same with the 797.

Just speculating here as a total clueless retard.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13027
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:43 am

Airbus will most probably launch a new A321 version in a few months, Paris.

Boeing will launch next year, So they have extra time to fine tune their responds.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
morrisond
Posts: 1178
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:50 am

rheinwaldner wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The 797 enjoys a 40 years technology advantage over the existing single aisle competition, it should be not depending on the container size to beat the competition with ease.

You forget, that it needs to be competitive against same-tech-level narrowbodies, that will arrive a few years later. Your argument is as flawed as Airbus saying in 2000: the A380 will enjoy 30 year technology advantage over existing VLA competition. And yes, it did beat the 744 and even the 748i with ease. But not the upcoming same-or more-tech-level near-VLA competition.

Would not a same-tech-level launch of a 200-250 seat mid-range NB in 2030 (be it from A or B) shorten the 797s competitive life so much, that the overall market outlook becomes questionable? In 2030 the 797 factories would just have reached the planned output rates.


You can't really say that one way or another - as I (and many others have pointed out) - an 7W (or 8W for that Matter) Oval shaped fuselage could have the potential to be almost as light on a per seat basis in Y with a potential advantage in premium seating and advantages in Cargo capacity per m2 of cross section area. Plus it would be shorter for a given seating capacity - potentially a lot shorter as premium would take up a lot less of the length of the Fuselage.

Given that the barrel of the airplane is one of the lightest parts (isn't it something like 10% of the MTOW?) - even is there is a say a 10% disadvantage per seat - that overall is very marginal on the overall weight of the plane. I would have to guess that the difference will purely come down to engines and whether or not they are half a gen or a full gen ahead which could be back ported to a 7w anyways.

A 6W or 5W would beat it (5W not over 200 seats) - but probably only if optimized for much shorter ranges with smaller wing/gear/etc. But then they are not competing in the same space and that is what the rewinged/shorter ranged NMA - A.K.A. NSA is for. (Pure speculation on my part).

Sorry for reviving the cross section debate - but I didn't bring it up.
 
uta999
Posts: 700
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:07 pm

The designs floating around for the 'new' 797 are so boring and safe.

Can't someone with an ounce of flair design something really radical, based around a completely new shape. Perhaps a Handley Page Victor shape, first flew in 1952, which looks more modern than anything being produced today. Designed nearly 70 years ago by a guy with a pencil.

Aircraft designers seem to have fallen into the Japanese car industry trap. Let's make all cars look the same!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor
Your computer just got better
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:20 pm

uta999 wrote:
The designs floating around for the 'new' 797 are so boring and safe.

Can't someone with an ounce of flair design something really radical, based around a completely new shape. Perhaps a Handley Page Victor shape, first flew in 1952, which looks more modern than anything being produced today. Designed nearly 70 years ago by a guy with a pencil.

Aircraft designers seem to have fallen into the Japanese car industry trap. Let's make all cars look the same!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor


Funny how the first thing I see on that page is “fatigue cracks”. Come on now...
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2792
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:21 pm

morrisond wrote:

Given that the barrel of the airplane is one of the lightest parts (isn't it something like 10% of the MTOW?)
Would you then agree that the aircraft weights 10 x that of the fuselage?
morrisond wrote:
- even is there is a say a 10% disadvantage per seat - that overall is very marginal on the overall weight of the plane
or if you believe maths works both ways then a ~10% increase in fuselage weight would have to make the entire aircraft weight ~10% greater for a similar performance level.
morrisond wrote:
. I would have to guess that the difference will purely come down to engines and whether or not they are half a gen or a full gen ahead which could be back ported to a 7w anyways.

A 6W or 5W would beat it (5W not over 200 seats) - but probably only if optimized for much shorter ranges with smaller wing/gear/etc. But then they are not competing in the same space and that is what the rewinged/shorter ranged NMA - A.K.A. NSA is for. (Pure speculation on my part).

Sorry for reviving the cross section debate - but I didn't bring it up.

It comes down to the sweet spot for optimising hoop stresses for pressure, bending stresses for moment arms of the tail/engines/wings and then once you establish where that sweet spot lies then how you fit the relevant number of seats into that area.

Ovoid fuselage is a neat way to get through some of the issues but at a cost of a floor in tension which is a more complex and weight gaining scenario than for the standard for it being in tension.

All fun engineering challenges no doubt.

Fred
Image
 
uta999
Posts: 700
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:30 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
uta999 wrote:
The designs floating around for the 'new' 797 are so boring and safe.

Can't someone with an ounce of flair design something really radical, based around a completely new shape. Perhaps a Handley Page Victor shape, first flew in 1952, which looks more modern than anything being produced today. Designed nearly 70 years ago by a guy with a pencil.

Aircraft designers seem to have fallen into the Japanese car industry trap. Let's make all cars look the same!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor


Funny how the first thing I see on that page is “fatigue cracks”. Come on now...


It was never designed for the low-level sorties it ended up doing to avoid Soviet radar. In the end, the Victor flew until 1993 as an in-flight tanker with the RAF. The 787 had much the same start in life with some serious wing issues.
Your computer just got better

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