DenverTed wrote:

astuteman wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

You actually just proved my argument. 8ab on the 797 replicates the A330 that killed the 7ab 767.

I don't think I did.
The 767 is a tight 8 across and comfortable 7-across and as such is a genuine widebody.

The 797 will need to be a lot smaller IMO to get even remotely close to being as cheap as a narrowbody

i.e. tight 7-across, generous 6-across

Rgds

At 15'-6" outside diameter of a circular fuselage, that is about the comfort level of the 787 or 777x. Compared to a 767, 10% less fuselage skin and 22% less frontal area, so a big savings, even without the much touted CFRP oval which I regard as mostly a gimmick whose savings to extra cost might not pencil out.

You have to think about a tight 7W as Halfish of a big circle on top and say 1/4 or 1/3 of a larger diameter circle on the bottom - a lot easier to build than a pure Oval as it should take care of the floor trying to bend itself into a pretzel. That could be done in metal it doesn't need to be CFRP - but it might for production efficiency.

At about 163" H and 185-190" W that is only about 25% more than an A320 for 16.7% more Y seats and up to 50% more premium seats. The differential between NMA cross section and A320 cper seat could be about what the A320 is over the 737.

What people are missing as well is that if they build the Tight/light cross section/cockpit it could be used for NSA with a different wing box/wing/gear/engines/tail a lot faster than another cleansheet program to replace the 737.

That would save time and a lot of money vs going total clean sheet on NSA again. Boeing can't wait 10-12 years for NSA to arrive. NSA based on NMA could be here by 2028ish.

The weird thing with Boeing is how they keep spinning (wasting?) resources but releasing new aircraft that overlap so much with their previous products.

This all started with the 767. The next one was a bit larger and had some more range - 777. The one after that they decided that they needed something right smack in the middle of the 767 and 777, so the 787 was born. And now they want make a next one just a smidge smaller to replace the 767.

So... what is it with Boeing’s hard-on for the 250-300 segment and need to continuously compete with their own products?

I had assumed that the only logical thing for Boeing was to make the 797 a narrow-body. If they truly want a smaller 787 with less range, surely the better option would be to put a lighter wing on the 787??

For production efficiency I see both the NMA and NSA being CFRP barrels. It is highly automated, earlier in the learning curve (CFRP costs are rising slower than Aluminum), almost no fasteners except at the joints, and has much easier C and D checks. Heck, Leonardo is building two CFRP bodies for the ATR as a demonstration on its feasibility.

transswede wrote:

The weird thing with Boeing is how they keep spinning (wasting?) resources but releasing new aircraft that overlap so much with their previous products.

This all started with the 767. The next one was a bit larger and had some more range - 777. The one after that they decided that they needed something right smack in the middle of the 767 and 777, so the 787 was born. And now they want make a next one just a smidge smaller to replace the 767.

So... what is it with Boeing’s hard-on for the 250-300 segment and need to continuously compete with their own products?

I had assumed that the only logical thing for Boeing was to make the 797 a narrow-body. If they truly want a smaller 787 with less range, surely the better option would be to put a lighter wing on the 787??

And this strategy has worked. Boeing is the leader in the widebody market. The whole purpose with the 787 is to squeeze Airbus out of the widebody space.

Newbiepilot wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Who cares about the Airbus crowd? Airlines care about numbers and smaller seats mean better numbers. I would not expect more than 16.5-17.3" for the 797.

Airbus marketing material is always advertising wider cabins. I don't think Boeing wants to always be on the negative side of that material. Boeing three times offered cabins for wider seats than 18 inches, (747s were originally 9 abreast, 777s were 9 abreast, 787s were 8 abreast) but airlines have gone to 17 inches as the standard.

So airlines have spoken and it would be crazy to do a 7 abreast with more than 17" seats. Airbus marketing is just that, airlines care about performance and passengers care about price.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

transswede wrote:

The weird thing with Boeing is how they keep spinning (wasting?) resources but releasing new aircraft that overlap so much with their previous products.

This all started with the 767. The next one was a bit larger and had some more range - 777. The one after that they decided that they needed something right smack in the middle of the 767 and 777, so the 787 was born. And now they want make a next one just a smidge smaller to replace the 767.

So... what is it with Boeing’s hard-on for the 250-300 segment and need to continuously compete with their own products?

I had assumed that the only logical thing for Boeing was to make the 797 a narrow-body. If they truly want a smaller 787 with less range, surely the better option would be to put a lighter wing on the 787??

And this strategy has worked. Boeing is the leader in the widebody market. The whole purpose with the 787 is to squeeze Airbus out of the widebody space.

17 WB deliveries from Airbus in June. 10 A350, 6 A330 and 1 A380.

But I would agree Boeing is the leader in the widebody space - or at least has been.

The 777 was unchallenged for a long time.
The 380 (despite being a marvellous passenger experience) didn't work that well for many airlines.
The 747-400 was the queen of the skies for years.
The 340 was well beaten by the 777
The 330 took time to mature and was assisted by the demise of the 340 allowing it to save weight and gain capability.
The 787 despite a fractious difficult birth is turning out to be a good frame
The 350 looks good but Airbus need to reduce costs.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

transswede wrote:

The weird thing with Boeing is how they keep spinning (wasting?) resources but releasing new aircraft that overlap so much with their previous products.

This all started with the 767. The next one was a bit larger and had some more range - 777. The one after that they decided that they needed something right smack in the middle of the 767 and 777, so the 787 was born. And now they want make a next one just a smidge smaller to replace the 767.

So... what is it with Boeing’s hard-on for the 250-300 segment and need to continuously compete with their own products?

I had assumed that the only logical thing for Boeing was to make the 797 a narrow-body. If they truly want a smaller 787 with less range, surely the better option would be to put a lighter wing on the 787??

And this strategy has worked. Boeing is the leader in the widebody market. The whole purpose with the 787 is to squeeze Airbus out of the widebody space.

It has worked in that they have maintained a ~50% split of the market. My point is merely that I wonder how much BETTER they could be doing if they didn't insist on practically rebuilding the last airplane they launched every time they launch a new one. They should be concentrating on a new narrow-body first, and tweak the 787 to create a short-range version instead if they absolutely need a short-range widebody.

seahawk wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Who cares about the Airbus crowd? Airlines care about numbers and smaller seats mean better numbers. I would not expect more than 16.5-17.3" for the 797.

Airbus marketing material is always advertising wider cabins. I don't think Boeing wants to always be on the negative side of that material. Boeing three times offered cabins for wider seats than 18 inches, (747s were originally 9 abreast, 777s were 9 abreast, 787s were 8 abreast) but airlines have gone to 17 inches as the standard.

So airlines have spoken and it would be crazy to do a 7 abreast with more than 17" seats. Airbus marketing is just that, airlines care about performance and passengers care about price.

The 17.2 "seat width is very good, and even more so on the 787 and 777-X combo due to the entirely new cabin environment of the 787's and 777-X's with larger portholes and a better air humidity with a lower altitude to reduce traveler fatigue compared to older planes like the A330, and 777 (non-X) .

The 17.2 " wide seat combines both comfort and a plus seat lightweight. This weight / comfort ratio has been a factor in the 787's leadership in the widebody market.

For the NMA / 797X I think it will be the 767 class. They will take back the fuselage, shave the structural weight in the cargo.

The seat would be as wide as the 767, ie huge. But since you are the only one to offer this type of fuselage, this "too generous seat" is no longer a problem from the moment when there is no competition for a more economical seat to a comfort descent 17.2 "-17.5 " width...

IMHO

Checklist787 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Airbus marketing material is always advertising wider cabins. I don't think Boeing wants to always be on the negative side of that material. Boeing three times offered cabins for wider seats than 18 inches, (747s were originally 9 abreast, 777s were 9 abreast, 787s were 8 abreast) but airlines have gone to 17 inches as the standard.

So airlines have spoken and it would be crazy to do a 7 abreast with more than 17" seats. Airbus marketing is just that, airlines care about performance and passengers care about price.

The 17.2 "seat width is very good, and even more so on the 787 and 777-X combo due to the entirely new cabin environment of the 787's and 777-X's with larger portholes and a better air humidity with a lower altitude to reduce traveler fatigue compared to older planes like the A330, and 777 (non-X) .

The 17.2 " wide seat combines both comfort and a plus seat lightweight. This weight / comfort ratio has been a factor in the 787's leadership in the widebody market.

For the NMA / 797X I think it will be the 767 class. They will take back the fuselage, shave the structural weight in the cargo.

The seat would be as wide as the 767, ie huge. But since you are the only one to offer this type of fuselage, this "too generous seat" is no longer a problem from the moment when there is no competition for a more economical seat to a comfort descent 17.2 "-17.5 " width...

IMHO

The competition is a single aisle design, which has a much more favourable aisle to seat ratio than a 7 abreast. And as you can not shrink the aisles for practical purposes, you must reduce the seat width to reduce the width penalty of your 2 aisle design. We will never again see a new design that will offer generous seats in economy class, it will always be a small as possible. And even with smaller seats the general roominess and comfort of a twin aisle will make it superior to the cramped feeling of single aisle plane.

seahawk wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

So airlines have spoken and it would be crazy to do a 7 abreast with more than 17" seats. Airbus marketing is just that, airlines care about performance and passengers care about price.

The 17.2 "seat width is very good, and even more so on the 787 and 777-X combo due to the entirely new cabin environment of the 787's and 777-X's with larger portholes and a better air humidity with a lower altitude to reduce traveler fatigue compared to older planes like the A330, and 777 (non-X) .

The 17.2 " wide seat combines both comfort and a plus seat lightweight. This weight / comfort ratio has been a factor in the 787's leadership in the widebody market.

For the NMA / 797X I think it will be the 767 class. They will take back the fuselage, shave the structural weight in the cargo.

The seat would be as wide as the 767, ie huge. But since you are the only one to offer this type of fuselage, this "too generous seat" is no longer a problem from the moment when there is no competition for a more economical seat to a comfort descent 17.2 "-17.5 " width...

IMHO

The competition is a single aisle design, which has a much more favourable aisle to seat ratio than a 7 abreast. And as you can not shrink the aisles for practical purposes, you must reduce the seat width to reduce the width penalty of your 2 aisle design. We will never again see a new design that will offer generous seats in economy class, it will always be a small as possible. And even with smaller seats the general roominess and comfort of a twin aisle will make it superior to the cramped feeling of single aisle plane.

Give me a wide seat in a narrowbody aircraft over a narrow seat in a wide body aircraft everyday.

The 787 at 9 abreast and 77W at 10 abreast stink, It's a natural reaction to confuse, to claim it's the trend / un-avoidable / acceptable.

But the newest aircraft entering service have wider seats: A350, A220, Embraer E2 and 777X. I see a real positive trend here



https://www.aircraftinteriorsinternatio ... o-far.html

Watch out for airlines / OE's offering "wider seats" by narrowing the armrests / aisles!

Bettter look at (number of seats) / (cross section at shoulder height) to avoid being taken for a (perception) ride..


http://www.aeroexpo.online/prod/explise ... 26709.html

For the 797 I assume Boeing will take 18 inch seat cushions, 1.5 inch armrests and 19 inch aisles, to avoid the wide spread, persistent comfort discusions like on 787 & 777 10 abreast. Boeing & the airlines are stuck there with little options but to educate / deflect / confuse / fool passengers. Because the cross section is what it is..

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/01/22/opinion-why-i-tell-people-to-avoid-flying-on-a-787/

transswede wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

transswede wrote:

The weird thing with Boeing is how they keep spinning (wasting?) resources but releasing new aircraft that overlap so much with their previous products.

This all started with the 767. The next one was a bit larger and had some more range - 777. The one after that they decided that they needed something right smack in the middle of the 767 and 777, so the 787 was born. And now they want make a next one just a smidge smaller to replace the 767.

So... what is it with Boeing’s hard-on for the 250-300 segment and need to continuously compete with their own products?

I had assumed that the only logical thing for Boeing was to make the 797 a narrow-body. If they truly want a smaller 787 with less range, surely the better option would be to put a lighter wing on the 787??

And this strategy has worked. Boeing is the leader in the widebody market. The whole purpose with the 787 is to squeeze Airbus out of the widebody space.

It has worked in that they have maintained a ~50% split of the market. My point is merely that I wonder how much BETTER they could be doing if they didn't insist on practically rebuilding the last airplane they launched every time they launch a new one. They should be concentrating on a new narrow-body first, and tweak the 787 to create a short-range version instead if they absolutely need a short-range widebody.

You would find that the percentage is not 50%. There were 19 deliveries in June for the 787 alone vs 17 for whole of Airbus WB. Add in the 777 and the 747-8F and the 767F, you would see it closer to a 70-30 split B-A, it helps that Boeing has an almost complete grip on the freighter market too.

keesje wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

The 17.2 "seat width is very good, and even more so on the 787 and 777-X combo due to the entirely new cabin environment of the 787's and 777-X's with larger portholes and a better air humidity with a lower altitude to reduce traveler fatigue compared to older planes like the A330, and 777 (non-X) .

The 17.2 " wide seat combines both comfort and a plus seat lightweight. This weight / comfort ratio has been a factor in the 787's leadership in the widebody market.

For the NMA / 797X I think it will be the 767 class. They will take back the fuselage, shave the structural weight in the cargo.

The seat would be as wide as the 767, ie huge. But since you are the only one to offer this type of fuselage, this "too generous seat" is no longer a problem from the moment when there is no competition for a more economical seat to a comfort descent 17.2 "-17.5 " width...

IMHO

The competition is a single aisle design, which has a much more favourable aisle to seat ratio than a 7 abreast. And as you can not shrink the aisles for practical purposes, you must reduce the seat width to reduce the width penalty of your 2 aisle design. We will never again see a new design that will offer generous seats in economy class, it will always be a small as possible. And even with smaller seats the general roominess and comfort of a twin aisle will make it superior to the cramped feeling of single aisle plane.

Give me a wide seat in a narrowbody aircraft over a narrow seat in a wide body aircraft everyday.

The 787 at 9 abreast and 77W at 10 abreast stink, It's a natural reaction to confuse, to claim it's the trend / un-avoidable / acceptable.

But the newest aircraft entering service have wider seats: A350, A220, Embraer E2 and 777X. I see a real positive trend here



https://www.aircraftinteriorsinternatio ... o-far.html

Watch out for airlines / OE's offering "wider seats" by narrowing the armrests / aisles!

Bettter look at (number of seats) / (cross section at shoulder height) to avoid being taken for a (perception) ride..


http://www.aeroexpo.online/prod/explise ... 26709.html

For the 797 I assume Boeing will take 18 inch seat cushions, 1.5 inch armrests and 19 inch aisles, to avoid the wide spread, persistent comfort discusions like on 787 & 777 10 abreast. Boeing & the airlines are stuck there with little options but to educate / deflect / confuse / fool passengers. Because the cross section is what it is..

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/01/22/opinion-why-i-tell-people-to-avoid-flying-on-a-787/

This whole argument about Airbus offering wider seats has been blown apart when they decided to more actively chase the 9 abreast A330/10 abreast A350 market than before, as Leeham explains:

https://leehamnews.com/2019/07/01/ponti ... -iag-deal/

jeffrey0032j wrote:

keesje wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The competition is a single aisle design, which has a much more favourable aisle to seat ratio than a 7 abreast. And as you can not shrink the aisles for practical purposes, you must reduce the seat width to reduce the width penalty of your 2 aisle design. We will never again see a new design that will offer generous seats in economy class, it will always be a small as possible. And even with smaller seats the general roominess and comfort of a twin aisle will make it superior to the cramped feeling of single aisle plane.

Give me a wide seat in a narrowbody aircraft over a narrow seat in a wide body aircraft everyday.

The 787 at 9 abreast and 77W at 10 abreast stink, It's a natural reaction to confuse, to claim it's the trend / un-avoidable / acceptable.

But the newest aircraft entering service have wider seats: A350, A220, Embraer E2 and 777X. I see a real positive trend here



https://www.aircraftinteriorsinternatio ... o-far.html

Watch out for airlines / OE's offering "wider seats" by narrowing the armrests / aisles!

Bettter look at (number of seats) / (cross section at shoulder height) to avoid being taken for a (perception) ride..


http://www.aeroexpo.online/prod/explise ... 26709.html

For the 797 I assume Boeing will take 18 inch seat cushions, 1.5 inch armrests and 19 inch aisles, to avoid the wide spread, persistent comfort discusions like on 787 & 777 10 abreast. Boeing & the airlines are stuck there with little options but to educate / deflect / confuse / fool passengers. Because the cross section is what it is..

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/01/22/opinion-why-i-tell-people-to-avoid-flying-on-a-787/

This whole argument about Airbus offering wider seats has been blown apart when they decided to more actively chase the 9 abreast A330/10 abreast A350 market than before, as Leeham explains:

https://leehamnews.com/2019/07/01/ponti ... -iag-deal/

This would be the "confuse" department. Avoiding reality, creating " see.." doubts, steering on perception.
98% of A330 are 8 abreast, A350s 9 abreast. 98% of 787 are 9 abreast, a growing majority of 777 10 abreast.

keesje wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

keesje wrote:

Give me a wide seat in a narrowbody aircraft over a narrow seat in a wide body aircraft everyday.

The 787 at 9 abreast and 77W at 10 abreast stink, It's a natural reaction to confuse, to claim it's the trend / un-avoidable / acceptable.

But the newest aircraft entering service have wider seats: A350, A220, Embraer E2 and 777X. I see a real positive trend here



https://www.aircraftinteriorsinternatio ... o-far.html

Watch out for airlines / OE's offering "wider seats" by narrowing the armrests / aisles!

Bettter look at (number of seats) / (cross section at shoulder height) to avoid being taken for a (perception) ride..


http://www.aeroexpo.online/prod/explise ... 26709.html

For the 797 I assume Boeing will take 18 inch seat cushions, 1.5 inch armrests and 19 inch aisles, to avoid the wide spread, persistent comfort discusions like on 787 & 777 10 abreast. Boeing & the airlines are stuck there with little options but to educate / deflect / confuse / fool passengers. Because the cross section is what it is..

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/01/22/opinion-why-i-tell-people-to-avoid-flying-on-a-787/

This whole argument about Airbus offering wider seats has been blown apart when they decided to more actively chase the 9 abreast A330/10 abreast A350 market than before, as Leeham explains:

https://leehamnews.com/2019/07/01/ponti ... -iag-deal/

This would be the "confuse" department. Avoiding reality, creating " see.." doubts, steering on perception.
98% of A330 are 8 abreast, A350s 9 abreast. 98% of 787 are 9 abreast, a growing majority of 777 10 abreast.

If Airbus could get enough orders on the 9 abreast A350, they wouldn't had made the active push for the 10 abreast during PAS. Fact is, they have noticed and acknowledged that the 350 is not delivering as much of an impact to the Boeing lineup, and they are finding ways to get around the issue.

These just supports the case that Boeing is leading the widebody space.

Anyway, we should get back on topic, that is the 797, I hold the belief that Boeing will do a 77W vs 340NG on this. They would had factored in the 321XLR into the business case, and the 797 will come out tops vs the XLR.

keesje wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

transswede wrote:

The weird thing with Boeing is how they keep spinning (wasting?) resources but releasing new aircraft that overlap so much with their previous products.

This all started with the 767. The next one was a bit larger and had some more range - 777. The one after that they decided that they needed something right smack in the middle of the 767 and 777, so the 787 was born. And now they want make a next one just a smidge smaller to replace the 767.

So... what is it with Boeing’s hard-on for the 250-300 segment and need to continuously compete with their own products?

I had assumed that the only logical thing for Boeing was to make the 797 a narrow-body. If they truly want a smaller 787 with less range, surely the better option would be to put a lighter wing on the 787??

And this strategy has worked. Boeing is the leader in the widebody market. The whole purpose with the 787 is to squeeze Airbus out of the widebody space.

17 WB deliveries from Airbus in June. 10 A350, 6 A330 and 1 A380.

And within a couple years airbus will deliver 3 a330s a month and 0 a380s. Boeing will be delivering twice as many wide-bodies.

keesje wrote:

For the 797 I assume Boeing will take 18 inch seat cushions, 1.5 inch armrests and 19 inch aisles, to avoid the wide spread, persistent comfort discusions like on 787 & 777 10 abreast. Boeing & the airlines are stuck there with little options but to educate / deflect / confuse / fool passengers. Because the cross section is what it is..

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/01/22/opinion-why-i-tell-people-to-avoid-flying-on-a-787/

18" seats, 19" aisles, 1.5" armrests, 1" between armrest and sidewall, 181" interior width.
That sounds right to me. If they deviate by more than an inch, I believe they are making an error. The fuselage dimension is the one they have to get right, they can stretch it and change the engines, but they can't change the fuselage. Airbus thought through the A350 very well IMO.

DenverTed wrote:

keesje wrote:

For the 797 I assume Boeing will take 18 inch seat cushions, 1.5 inch armrests and 19 inch aisles, to avoid the wide spread, persistent comfort discusions like on 787 & 777 10 abreast. Boeing & the airlines are stuck there with little options but to educate / deflect / confuse / fool passengers. Because the cross section is what it is..

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/01/22/opinion-why-i-tell-people-to-avoid-flying-on-a-787/

18" seats, 19" aisles, 1.5" armrests, 1" between armrest and sidewall, 181" interior width.
That sounds right to me. If they deviate by more than an inch, I believe they are making an error. The fuselage dimension is the one they have to get right, they can stretch it and change the engines, but they can't change the fuselage. Airbus thought through the A350 very well IMO.

That sounds about right - maybe slightly slimmer Aisles - but about 160-165" H and about 188-190"W External - 25% more cross section than A321.

But I believe the MTOW will be a lot lower than people are assuming the more I think about it. If A321XLR is 101T and 797-6 is that plus about 5-10% more seats (one aisle wider slightly shorter) with about 5% more range - why would it need top be 140ish T? It would probably need to be 110-115T to be competitive at 5,200NM range.

According to the most recent article it sounds like the 797-7 is about 20-25% more seats with just slightly less range than 797-6 means that it is probably a MTOW bump into the 120-125T range.

By keeping it tight and light that's what makes a 7W NSA possible as with smaller Wings/Gear/Engines/Tail MTOW would have to be less than 80T (with size equal to A320.5 - 200 seat single class) with ranges in the 3,000NM area to be competitive on Short/Medium Haul.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

This whole argument about Airbus offering wider seats has been blown apart when they decided to more actively chase the 9 abreast A330/10 abreast A350 market than before, as Leeham explains:

https://leehamnews.com/2019/07/01/ponti ... -iag-deal/

What percentage of A330 / A350 are/will be delivered with 9 / 10 abreast? I think that will remain a relatively small portion of the market.

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 think SLC will be very aggressive in bidding for the 797 construction site. New terminal, Inland port right beside the airport, known high worker production and available land at the airport.

morrisond wrote:

But I believe the MTOW will be a lot lower than people are assuming the more I think about it. If A321XLR is 101T and 797-6 is that plus about 5-10% more seats (one aisle wider slightly shorter) with about 5% more range - why would it need top be 140ish T? It would probably need to be 110-115T to be competitive at 5,200NM range.

According to the most recent article it sounds like the 797-7 is about 20-25% more seats with just slightly less range than 797-6 means that it is probably a MTOW bump into the 120-125T range.

By keeping it tight and light that's what makes a 7W NSA possible as with smaller Wings/Gear/Engines/Tail MTOW would have to be less than 80T (with size equal to A320.5 - 200 seat single class) with ranges in the 3,000NM area to be competitive on Short/Medium Haul.

Yes, I wonder how short they will go with a 7W NSA? 200 seats in WN density for a 140' long 7W aircraft? Then a stretch to 155' for mixed class or 250 higher density. Single axle main gears if they keep it below 100t MTOW.

DenverTed wrote:

keesje wrote:

For the 797 I assume Boeing will take 18 inch seat cushions, 1.5 inch armrests and 19 inch aisles, to avoid the wide spread, persistent comfort discusions like on 787 & 777 10 abreast. Boeing & the airlines are stuck there with little options but to educate / deflect / confuse / fool passengers. Because the cross section is what it is..

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/01/22/opinion-why-i-tell-people-to-avoid-flying-on-a-787/

18" seats, 19" aisles, 1.5" armrests, 1" between armrest and sidewall, 181" interior width.
That sounds right to me. If they deviate by more than an inch, I believe they are making an error. The fuselage dimension is the one they have to get right, they can stretch it and change the engines, but they can't change the fuselage. Airbus thought through the A350 very well IMO.

ah, yes. the a350, truly a paragon of wise design decisions. it's not at all if airbus launched it, it turned out to be a complete failure, and then had to design an entirely new airplane, one with a significantly different fuselage.

morrisond wrote:

But I believe the MTOW will be a lot lower than people are assuming the more I think about it.

That is because you have the crazy idea that the 797 will be really small and that the 737 replacement will use the same 7ab cross section.

“Even if it sneaks a little bit north of 50,000 thrust, we would still consider it to be in the spirit of the JV,” he said. “We are very respectful of the spirit of the JV and not the letter.” It’s also yet to be determined how many variants of the NMA there will be and what range of propulsion will be required, he said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... new-boeing

50,000lb of thrust and you think it will have a 120T MTOW. That would make it the highest thrust to aircraft weight ratio of any airliner ever built. The trend is for aircraft to require less thrust due to long carbin wings.

MTOW will be around 140T.

PW100 wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

This whole argument about Airbus offering wider seats has been blown apart when they decided to more actively chase the 9 abreast A330/10 abreast A350 market than before, as Leeham explains:

https://leehamnews.com/2019/07/01/ponti ... -iag-deal/

What percentage of A330 / A350 are/will be delivered with 9 / 10 abreast? I think that will remain a relatively small portion of the market.

See my reply to keesje, it is a small one, but Airbus has changed its tone in PAS, signalling that they will chase this tight configuration market to boost their A350 sales instead of simply leaving it to customer's requests. This is a marked change from the XWB marketing.

keesje wrote:

This would be the "confuse" department. Avoiding reality, creating " see.." doubts, steering on perception.
98% of A330 are 8 abreast, A350s 9 abreast. 98% of 787 are 9 abreast, a growing majority of 777 10 abreast.

98% of A330s being 8 abreast is an exaggeration.

9 abreast A330s
Air Asia X
Thai Air Asia X
Indonesia Air Asia X
Lion Air
Cebu Pacific
Philippines Airlines
Air Transat
Air Caribes
Corsair
Wamos
Etc

It adds up to around 100 airplanes.

I assume the NMA may have some airlines squeeze in an extra seat. 8 abreast 767s and 9 abreast A330s exist

Airbus widebodies from A310 to A380 have all had a luxe "standard" configuration and a <17" "charter" configuration.

Boeing widebodies have been inconsistent. The 747, 777X, and 787 were designed around a single configuration (hot-air 8Y 787 marketing notwithstanding) with narrow but not substandard seats. The 767 and classic 777 were designed more like Airbus practice. But I don't think that's Boeing's future. I expect the 797 to be a tight 7Y that really doesn't allow for any other configuration. If you could squeeze in 8Y, you'd have a 767 copy, and everything Boeing has said and done has made clear that the 797 cross section will be substantially smaller than the 767 cross section.

RJMAZ wrote:

morrisond wrote:

But I believe the MTOW will be a lot lower than people are assuming the more I think about it.

That is because you have the crazy idea that the 797 will be really small and that the 737 replacement will use the same 7ab cross section.

“Even if it sneaks a little bit north of 50,000 thrust, we would still consider it to be in the spirit of the JV,” he said. “We are very respectful of the spirit of the JV and not the letter.” It’s also yet to be determined how many variants of the NMA there will be and what range of propulsion will be required, he said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... new-boeing

50,000lb of thrust and you think it will have a 120T MTOW. That would make it the highest thrust to aircraft weight ratio of any airliner ever built. The trend is for aircraft to require less thrust due to long carbin wings.

MTOW will be around 140T.

That's where I think the 797-8 will be (140T) and it will need that thrust to compensate for a relatively small wing. I think the wing will be sized to fit into normal 737/A320 gates while folded and optimized around the 797-7, maybe 43-44m in width. It will effectively be a little small for 797-8 and hence the need for more thrust.

Kind of like the 781 is underwinged but benefits from more thrust and could use a bunch more MTOW.

A 797-8 would need 140T to get 5,000ish NM range.

The 797-6 and 7 would need substantially less thrust - call it 40-45k.

morrisond wrote:

That's where I think the 797-8 will be (140T) and it will need that thrust to compensate for a relatively small wing. I think the wing will be sized to fit into normal 737/A320 gates while folded and optimized around the 797-7, maybe 43-44m in width. It will effectively be a little small for 797-8 and hence the need for more thrust.

Kind of like the 781 is underwinged but benefits from more thrust and could use a bunch more MTOW.

A 797-8 would need 140T to get 5,000ish NM range.

The 797-6 and 7 would need substantially less thrust - call it 40-45k.

Having two weight versions of the 797 that far apart will require two engines. Again another ridiculous idea.

40,000lb to 50,000lb is a 25% increase. The A350-1000 engine is a smaller thrust increase than that and the engine is completely different inside.

Derating an engine is also inefficient. The 797 can not afford to have unoptimised engines.

Having a heavier 797 version in the pipeline means everything from the landing gear bays to the wings have to be slightly oversized for the future model. Or the 797-8 would have very little commonality with the 797-6 and 797-7.

Both 797 models will have very high commonality with just a fuselage plug in the long model. It would be crazy to suggest otherwise. Some people are questioning if there is even a market for a small widebody let alone multiple weight variants.

morrisond wrote:

That sounds about right - maybe slightly slimmer Aisles - but about 160-165" H and about 188-190"W External - 25% more cross section than A321.

25% more cross section for 17% more seats, not good enough.

They need to get it down below 160" internally, the more the better. Being able to win against the A321NEO is cute, but that is not enough it needs to win by a serious margin to survive when the new single aisles will arrive.

seahawk wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

So airlines have spoken and it would be crazy to do a 7 abreast with more than 17" seats. Airbus marketing is just that, airlines care about performance and passengers care about price.

The 17.2 "seat width is very good, and even more so on the 787 and 777-X combo due to the entirely new cabin environment of the 787's and 777-X's with larger portholes and a better air humidity with a lower altitude to reduce traveler fatigue compared to older planes like the A330, and 777 (non-X) .

The 17.2 " wide seat combines both comfort and a plus seat lightweight. This weight / comfort ratio has been a factor in the 787's leadership in the widebody market.

For the NMA / 797X I think it will be the 767 class. They will take back the fuselage, shave the structural weight in the cargo.

The seat would be as wide as the 767, ie huge. But since you are the only one to offer this type of fuselage, this "too generous seat" is no longer a problem from the moment when there is no competition for a more economical seat to a comfort descent 17.2 "-17.5 " width...

IMHO

The competition is a single aisle design, which has a much more favourable aisle to seat ratio than a 7 abreast. And as you can not shrink the aisles for practical purposes, you must reduce the seat width to reduce the width penalty of your 2 aisle design. We will never again see a new design that will offer generous seats in economy class, it will always be a small as possible. And even with smaller seats the general roominess and comfort of a twin aisle will make it superior to the cramped feeling of single aisle plane.

I understand your point of view. But here it is that the NMA 797 is not really a competitor of A321neo. Remember that the NMA goes further, carries more passengers, with the ability to create a real Premium class and / or a real Business class while having more passengers than any A321neo that is restricted in its possibilities as than narrowbody. While the 737-10 MAX attacks the A321neo (no LR / -XLR)

keesje wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

The 17.2 "seat width is very good, and even more so on the 787 and 777-X combo due to the entirely new cabin environment of the 787's and 777-X's with larger portholes and a better air humidity with a lower altitude to reduce traveler fatigue compared to older planes like the A330, and 777 (non-X) .

The 17.2 " wide seat combines both comfort and a plus seat lightweight. This weight / comfort ratio has been a factor in the 787's leadership in the widebody market.

For the NMA / 797X I think it will be the 767 class. They will take back the fuselage, shave the structural weight in the cargo.

The seat would be as wide as the 767, ie huge. But since you are the only one to offer this type of fuselage, this "too generous seat" is no longer a problem from the moment when there is no competition for a more economical seat to a comfort descent 17.2 "-17.5 " width...

IMHO

The competition is a single aisle design, which has a much more favourable aisle to seat ratio than a 7 abreast. And as you can not shrink the aisles for practical purposes, you must reduce the seat width to reduce the width penalty of your 2 aisle design. We will never again see a new design that will offer generous seats in economy class, it will always be a small as possible. And even with smaller seats the general roominess and comfort of a twin aisle will make it superior to the cramped feeling of single aisle plane.

Give me a wide seat in a narrowbody aircraft over a narrow seat in a wide body aircraft everyday.

The 787 at 9 abreast and 77W at 10 abreast stink, It's a natural reaction to confuse, to claim it's the trend / un-avoidable / acceptable.

But the newest aircraft entering service have wider seats: A350, A220, Embraer E2 and 777X. I see a real positive trend here



https://www.aircraftinteriorsinternatio ... o-far.html

Watch out for airlines / OE's offering "wider seats" by narrowing the armrests / aisles!

Bettter look at (number of seats) / (cross section at shoulder height) to avoid being taken for a (perception) ride..


http://www.aeroexpo.online/prod/explise ... 26709.html

For the 797 I assume Boeing will take 18 inch seat cushions, 1.5 inch armrests and 19 inch aisles, to avoid the wide spread, persistent comfort discusions like on 787 & 777 10 abreast. Boeing & the airlines are stuck there with little options but to educate / deflect / confuse / fool passengers. Because the cross section is what it is..

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/01/22/opinion-why-i-tell-people-to-avoid-flying-on-a-787/

Do you travel?

There is no real difference between a 787 / 777-X seat with an A330 / A350, it only represents 0.8 "(2 cm) If you have a problem with a" Boeing seat", it's that you have a problem with the "Airbus seat"

Boeing has been smarter because with this barely noticeable difference, they are selling more aircraft than the competition in this market segment

Checklist787 wrote:

keesje wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The competition is a single aisle design, which has a much more favourable aisle to seat ratio than a 7 abreast. And as you can not shrink the aisles for practical purposes, you must reduce the seat width to reduce the width penalty of your 2 aisle design. We will never again see a new design that will offer generous seats in economy class, it will always be a small as possible. And even with smaller seats the general roominess and comfort of a twin aisle will make it superior to the cramped feeling of single aisle plane.

Give me a wide seat in a narrowbody aircraft over a narrow seat in a wide body aircraft everyday.

The 787 at 9 abreast and 77W at 10 abreast stink, It's a natural reaction to confuse, to claim it's the trend / un-avoidable / acceptable.

But the newest aircraft entering service have wider seats: A350, A220, Embraer E2 and 777X. I see a real positive trend here



https://www.aircraftinteriorsinternatio ... o-far.html

Watch out for airlines / OE's offering "wider seats" by narrowing the armrests / aisles!

Bettter look at (number of seats) / (cross section at shoulder height) to avoid being taken for a (perception) ride..


http://www.aeroexpo.online/prod/explise ... 26709.html

For the 797 I assume Boeing will take 18 inch seat cushions, 1.5 inch armrests and 19 inch aisles, to avoid the wide spread, persistent comfort discusions like on 787 & 777 10 abreast. Boeing & the airlines are stuck there with little options but to educate / deflect / confuse / fool passengers. Because the cross section is what it is..

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/01/22/opinion-why-i-tell-people-to-avoid-flying-on-a-787/

Do you travel?

There is no real difference between a 787 / 777-X seat with an A330 / A350, it only represents 0.8 "(2 cm) If you have a problem with a" Boeing seat", it's that you have a problem with the "Airbus seat"

Boeing has been smarter because with this barely noticeable difference, they are selling more aircraft than the competition in this market segment

Seriously, there is not a notice all difference whatsoever. I flew an A340, 2 777s and an A330 and felt comfortable in all aircraft. Honestly the least comfortable was the A340. Economy is Economy, if you want a legitimate difference pay up to a higher class of service.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

If Airbus could get enough orders on the 9 abreast A350, they wouldn't had made the active push for the 10 abreast during PAS. Fact is, they have noticed and acknowledged that the 350 is not delivering as much of an impact to the Boeing lineup, and they are finding ways to get around the issue.

These just supports the case that Boeing is leading the widebody space.

Anyway, we should get back on topic, that is the 797, I hold the belief that Boeing will do a 77W vs 340NG on this. They would had factored in the 321XLR into the business case, and the 797 will come out tops vs the XLR.

That's almost it, I would have said 777-300ER VS A340-600

seahawk wrote:

morrisond wrote:

That sounds about right - maybe slightly slimmer Aisles - but about 160-165" H and about 188-190"W External - 25% more cross section than A321.

25% more cross section for 17% more seats, not good enough.

They need to get it down below 160" internally, the more the better. Being able to win against the A321NEO is cute, but that is not enough it needs to win by a serious margin to survive when the new single aisles will arrive.

160" high fuselage? That is only 406cm

You've gotta be joking?

The larger 797-7 has a seating number slightly higher than the 767-300. So all economy seats the 797-7 will require two additional rows over the 767-300. The 767-300 is 55metres long, add two rows and the 797-7 will need to be 57 metres long.

A 57 metre fuselage 406cm high gives a fineness ratio of 14:1. Only the 757-300 is skinnier and only by a very small margin. This gives zero room for a future stretch of the 797.

A future 797-8 stretch which will most definitely come when engine improvements arrive down the track might add 10% more seats. This will need a further 5m stretch bringing the length up to 62metres which is nearly as long as a 777-200.

I found a photo of the fancy 7ab reduced height 797-8...

The A321 will have an empty weight of around 52t, engine choice and low operating costs, also >4000NM. Comfortably 18 inch seats 19 inch aisle. The 52t enables it however to fly the bulk of the flights, 1-4 hours efficiently too. Thats why it's ordered by the thousands. Will a 5000NM twin aisle be able to compete here? If not, it risks becoming a niche aircraft.

RJMAZ wrote:

seahawk wrote:

morrisond wrote:

That sounds about right - maybe slightly slimmer Aisles - but about 160-165" H and about 188-190"W External - 25% more cross section than A321.

25% more cross section for 17% more seats, not good enough.

They need to get it down below 160" internally, the more the better. Being able to win against the A321NEO is cute, but that is not enough it needs to win by a serious margin to survive when the new single aisles will arrive.

160" high fuselage? That is only 406cm

You've gotta be joking?

The larger 797-7 has a seating number slightly higher than the 767-300. So all economy seats the 797-7 will require two additional rows over the 767-300. The 767-300 is 55metres long, add two rows and the 797-7 will need to be 57 metres long.

A 57 metre fuselage 406cm high gives a fineness ratio of 14:1. Only the 757-300 is skinnier and only by a very small margin. This gives zero room for a future stretch of the 797.

A future 797-8 stretch which will most definitely come when engine improvements arrive down the track might add 10% more seats. This will need a further 5m stretch bringing the length up to 62metres which is nearly as long as a 777-200.

I found a photo of the fancy 7ab reduced height 797-8...

I would rather think of a similarity of the future "strategy" of Toulouse.

The all new A322-X / A-323X combo.

When there is no strategy, you have to rely on luck. (A380 / -A340-600 / -A350-1000 ...)

seabosdca wrote:

Airbus widebodies from A310 to A380 have all had a luxe "standard" configuration and a <17" "charter" configuration.

Boeing widebodies have been inconsistent. The 747, 777X, and 787 were designed around a single configuration (hot-air 8Y 787 marketing notwithstanding) with narrow but not substandard seats. The 767 and classic 777 were designed more like Airbus practice. But I don't think that's Boeing's future. I expect the 797 to be a tight 7Y that really doesn't allow for any other configuration. If you could squeeze in 8Y, you'd have a 767 copy, and everything Boeing has said and done has made clear that the 797 cross section will be substantially smaller than the 767 cross section.

I do not adhere to your logic.

However, there is an urgent need for Airbus to design cabins like Boeing to sell more widebodys ...

keesje wrote:

The A321 will have an empty weight of around 52t, engine choice and low operating costs, also >4000NM. Comfortably 18 inch seats 19 inch aisle. The 52t enables it however to fly the bulk of the flights, 1-4 hours efficiently too. Thats why it's ordered by the thousands. Will a 5000NM twin aisle be able to compete here? If not, it risks becoming a niche aircraft.

The NMA 797 will be unique.

The A321neo now has a real competitor, the 737-10 MAX, where the A737-900 's/ -9MAX' s did not have enough ground clearance. Now it's settled.

The A321 enjoyed ONLY as in a monopolistic situation,
OLD airplane but took advantage of A situation.

Airbus is not enough "magic" to convince him.
Airbus takes advantage of its situation, NO more.

But it's over now

Checklist787 wrote:

keesje wrote:

The A321 will have an empty weight of around 52t, engine choice and low operating costs, also >4000NM. Comfortably 18 inch seats 19 inch aisle. The 52t enables it however to fly the bulk of the flights, 1-4 hours efficiently too. Thats why it's ordered by the thousands. Will a 5000NM twin aisle be able to compete here? If not, it risks becoming a niche aircraft.

The NMA 797 will be unique.

The A321neo now has a real competitor, the 737-10 MAX, where the A737-900 's/ -9MAX' s did not have enough ground clearance. Now it's settled.

The A321 enjoyed ONLY as in a monopolistic situation,
OLD airplane but took advantage of A situation.

Airbus is not enough "magic" to convince him.
Airbus takes advantage of its situation, NO more.

But it's over now

I hope so, the A321 orders & deliveries are getting out of hand. We are facing 3000 A321 deliveries before any 797 flies.. Plus the XLR 101t MTOW bump enables Airbus to do a capacity for range stretch too, without much investment.. Range would be limitted to 737-8 levels but cost per seat would further drop. Airlinesn often take it in consideration too.

However, there is an urgent need for Airbus to design cabins like Boeing to sell more widebodys ...

Pushing out 10 A350 and 4-6 A330 per month, 1150 sold, they must be panicking..

RJMAZ wrote:

seahawk wrote:

morrisond wrote:

That sounds about right - maybe slightly slimmer Aisles - but about 160-165" H and about 188-190"W External - 25% more cross section than A321.

25% more cross section for 17% more seats, not good enough.

They need to get it down below 160" internally, the more the better. Being able to win against the A321NEO is cute, but that is not enough it needs to win by a serious margin to survive when the new single aisles will arrive.

160" high fuselage? That is only 406cm

You've gotta be joking?

The larger 797-7 has a seating number slightly higher than the 767-300. So all economy seats the 797-7 will require two additional rows over the 767-300. The 767-300 is 55metres long, add two rows and the 797-7 will need to be 57 metres long.

A 57 metre fuselage 406cm high gives a fineness ratio of 14:1. Only the 757-300 is skinnier and only by a very small margin. This gives zero room for a future stretch of the 797.

A future 797-8 stretch which will most definitely come when engine improvements arrive down the track might add 10% more seats. This will need a further 5m stretch bringing the length up to 62metres which is nearly as long as a 777-200.

I found a photo of the fancy 7ab reduced height 797-8...

That is the design problem of the 797. If you want the small version to challenge the A321, you limit the size of the big version. That is true for nearly all parameters in the design, for height to width, to cargo capacity, to OEW and MTOW. There were good reasons why Boeing came up with the 757/767 back at the time.

And that makes the business case problematic. Does Boeing really need another plane to kill the A330NEO for good or should the 787 not do exactly that? And if you look at the limited sales of the A330NEO would the large MoM not only eat into 787 sales?

seahawk wrote:

And that makes the business case problematic. Does Boeing really need another plane to kill the A330NEO for good or should the 787 not do exactly that? And if you look at the limited sales of the A330NEO would the large MoM not only eat into 787 sales?

Looking at sales & specs of the 787 and A330, I think so far the 787 hasn't killed the A330. And to be honest the 787-8 is taking a dive too. 1 or 2 delivered so far this year. Sales of the smaller A330-800 are neglectable also. So in that sense there seems to be a space / a need to build another plane.

keesje wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

keesje wrote:

The A321 will have an empty weight of around 52t, engine choice and low operating costs, also >4000NM. Comfortably 18 inch seats 19 inch aisle. The 52t enables it however to fly the bulk of the flights, 1-4 hours efficiently too. Thats why it's ordered by the thousands. Will a 5000NM twin aisle be able to compete here? If not, it risks becoming a niche aircraft.

The NMA 797 will be unique.

The A321neo now has a real competitor, the 737-10 MAX, where the A737-900 's/ -9MAX' s did not have enough ground clearance. Now it's settled.

The A321 enjoyed ONLY as in a monopolistic situation,
OLD airplane but took advantage of A situation.

Airbus is not enough "magic" to convince him.
Airbus takes advantage of its situation, NO more.

But it's over now

I hope so, the A321 orders & deliveries are getting out of hand. We are facing 3000 A321 deliveries before any 797 flies.. Plus the XLR 101t MTOW bump enables Airbus to do a capacity for range stretch too, without much investment.. Range would be limitted to 737-8 levels but cost per seat would further drop. Airlinesn often take it in consideration too.

However, there is an urgent need for Airbus to design cabins like Boeing to sell more widebodys ...

Pushing out 10 A350 and 4-6 A330 per month, 1150 sold, they must be panicking..

You confirm what I tell you.

Airbus enjoys because the market is huuuuge.

They took advantage of the situation but they are not innovators like at one time. They prefer copying Boeing today.

But that does not change anything I think of Boeing and Airbus.

I find that Airbus enjoys an insolent position.

That's why I said Boeing deserves a better position.

TOMOROW, the NMA-797X will also join a fleet of 1400 787 Dreamliner's nearly 2000 777's will also be in flight.

It's only a matter of perspective and then the huge backlog of the MAX too.


The NMA-797X should upset the market even in the narrowbody market despite that it is not a direct competitor ...

To be honest with you I do not find normal that travelers pay their tickets very expensive for 2 hours of flight even with A320's / 737's in 2019.

It is even worse than before because many first class have disappeared to densify the cabin with seats.

People do not want to put our bags in the lower hold so they take bags to put them above their heads because it costs nothing and they receive their bags immediately without having to wait at the airport.

I had flew in an A320 last January and it was a boarding and disembarking hell.

We took our bags and we had run like animals to customs so as not to waste time.

When I see the features of the NMA,

-Two aisles,
-More baggage bins
-More comfort

I see a NEW standard for the NEXT 60 to 70 YEARS ...

Billion people on the planet in 2020. How much in 2030, 2040-2070? ...

jeffrey0032j wrote:

PW100 wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

This whole argument about Airbus offering wider seats has been blown apart when they decided to more actively chase the 9 abreast A330/10 abreast A350 market than before, as Leeham explains:

https://leehamnews.com/2019/07/01/ponti ... -iag-deal/

What percentage of A330 / A350 are/will be delivered with 9 / 10 abreast? I think that will remain a relatively small portion of the market.

See my reply to keesje, it is a small one, but Airbus has changed its tone in PAS, signalling that they will chase this tight configuration market to boost their A350 sales instead of simply leaving it to customer's requests. This is a marked change from the XWB marketing.

SMALL market, but will BOOST sales . . . Contradictio in Terminis.

Checklist787 wrote:

They took advantage of the situation but they are not innovators like at one time. They prefer copying Boeing today.

Yes, the A330NEO, A380, A400M, Beluga, 321XLR if you look real good, all copies of uhh.. Boeings.
FBW, 2 pilot WB's, Glare, carbon pannels, geared fans, A350 morfing wings, A220, global FAL's, all copied.

Are you serious, or is this just a Boeing supportive mood?

seahawk wrote:

And that makes the business case problematic. Does Boeing really need another plane to kill the A330NEO for good or should the 787 not do exactly that? And if you look at the limited sales of the A330NEO would the large MoM not only eat into 787 sales?

The business case isn't problematic though. It is so obvious and clear cut to me.

The 747 is dead, the A380 is dead, the 777X will die. Longhaul is downgauging, increasing frequency and moving to point to point. The 787NEO will be largest aircraft made by Boeing in 20 years time. 747's were replaced by 777W's. A380's are being replaced by 777X. The A350NEO and 787NEO will have a duopoly of the entire top third of the market. That is a thousand 787's needed to be built every decade just to support the routes above 5000nm that the 797 could never do. With that many sales the 787NEO can happily give the 787-8 replacement market to the 797. A huge portion of 787-8's and A330CEO's flying routes under 5000nm will get replaced by the smaller 797.

Time and time again people get shocked when an aircraft is replaced by a smaller aircraft. It is so obvious why.

The spacing between an 8ab 797 and 9ab 787 is actually huge. Take the average size range of each family. The 797 is two thirds of the size and has two thirds of the range. 0.66 multiplied by 0.66 is 43% of the "capability". The 797 will have around half of the MTOW weight of the 787 there will be little direct competition between the two families.

The limited sales of the A330NEO gives no reflection of the MOM market as it is overweight for MOM role.

As technology improves fewer aircraft types are needed to cover the full spectrum of flights. In 20 years time I expect Boeing to only have three families.

Large - 787NEO and the 787-11.
Medium - 797
Small - NSA

RJMAZ wrote:

The spacing between an 8ab 797 and 9ab 787 is actually huge. Take the average size range of each family. The 797 is two thirds of the size and has two thirds of the range. 0.66 multiplied by 0.66 is 43% of the "capability". The 797 will have around half of the MTOW weight of the 787 there will be little direct competition between the two families.

The limited sales of the A330NEO gives no reflection of the MOM market as it is overweight for MOM role.

As technology improves fewer aircraft types are needed to cover the full spectrum of flights. In 20 years time I expect Boeing to only have three families.

Large - 787NEO and the 787-11.
Medium - 797
Small - NSA

I fully agree with this.
With the 797 Boeing could be taking a 787 market share....but a small one.
For the sake of not "competing" with themselves, (and in a small gap, as RJMAZ exposed), I don't see how they would they prefer to compete with Airbus A321 XLR with a cleansheet equivalent to be released 6-7 years later, in the medium-small aircraft segment, where it doesnt' seem easy to improve a lot more efficiency.

Airbus 100% copy of Boeing .

Agree, Boeing innovation has been dazzling. First the MAX and now the 797. Continiuos innovation & it just doesn't stop. Airbus can learn a thing or 2.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DowitrCzH-4/WcpsKSc4J1I/AAAAAAAACw4/tSGvOzpEhLIxwB4O0lXFLR7fEiUHuB5NACLcBGAs/s1600/Aerospace%2BInnovation%2BSustainable%2BFuture.jpg

RJMAZ wrote:

The 747 is dead, the A380 is dead, the 777X will die. Longhaul is downgauging, increasing frequency and moving to point to point. The 787NEO will be largest aircraft made by Boeing in 20 years time. 747's were replaced by 777W's. A380's are being replaced by 777X. The A350NEO and 787NEO will have a duopoly of the entire top third of the market. That is a thousand 787's needed to be built every decade just to support the routes above 5000nm that the 797 could never do.

Whilst I can completely agree that point to point is probably the way forward in TATL and similar markets, I just don't see that there are enough point to point routes that would at the moment sustain cost effective 200+ passengers per flight. You don't just need a local market big enough to sustain that, you need to do it against the widebodies flying to nearby larger markets with tickets subsidised by the premium seats / larger number of people.

LCC's in Europe started with <150 seats, and only recently built the secondary routes big enough to have larger planes, and that building was because of new stimulated demand - that takes time, so for TATL you'd imagine the same scenario would be needed, to get to the 200+ seats, you'd need to start with less - not least of course that time avoiding hubs is a lot more relevant on a short flight to a holiday home etc.

The alternative is if you're thinking that you'd get a more immediate downgrading on those nearby larger markets, but I don't see how that could happen in most cases - certainly not on the LHR to USA type routes.

A cheaper, smaller plane would make sense for TATL, I just can't see a genuine route to getting there that isn't narrowbody getting bigger, rather than small widebody arriving.

oh for f**ks sake, can you guys stay on topic? Why does every thread have to become an E-Penis thread?

RJMAZ wrote:

morrisond wrote:

But I believe the MTOW will be a lot lower than people are assuming the more I think about it.

That is because you have the crazy idea that the 797 will be really small and that the 737 replacement will use the same 7ab cross section.

“Even if it sneaks a little bit north of 50,000 thrust, we would still consider it to be in the spirit of the JV,” he said. “We are very respectful of the spirit of the JV and not the letter.” It’s also yet to be determined how many variants of the NMA there will be and what range of propulsion will be required, he said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... new-boeing

50,000lb of thrust and you think it will have a 120T MTOW. That would make it the highest thrust to aircraft weight ratio of any airliner ever built. The trend is for aircraft to require less thrust due to long carbin wings.

MTOW will be around 140T.

Depending on the span it will not need 50k either, 45k would be more than adequate. you'd only need a 50k+ engine if you were putting a 757 sized wing on the thing (I dont think this is too far from the what could be done).

Fred

Fred