astuteman wrote:Revelation wrote:Thing is, the info we get from the media about what NMA is has not changed in at least a year now. It could be viewed as disinformation perhaps up to a certain point in time, but when you have people like David Neeleman, a big player in the industry and historically a big buyer of Airbus products, come out of his briefing with Boeing reciting all the things we know about NMA chapter and verse, the room for debate about what NMA is becomes vanishingly small. You're then down to a change of mind at Boeing which is possible but not likely given the momentum, or a pure disinformation campaign, which seems ridiculous since you're now implying Neeleman is a dupe or a troll. Yet we have countless posts along the lines of "I've cracked the code, NMA really is X" where X takes on pretty much every value other than what Boeing is telling us it is and industry insiders briefed by Boeing are telling us it is.
I'd be genuinely interested to understand what you think the spec is that has not changed in a year.
Me: The info we get from the media about what NMA is has not changed in at least a year now.
You: I'd be genuinely interested to understand what you think the spec is that has not changed in a year.
Not really the same thing. Not sure why you are shifting the conversation in that way. I'm sure the spec is changing inside house in some ways, but what we read in the media based on things Boeing is saying and things people briefed by Boeing are willing to say has not changed. I know this from being an avid reader of the aviation media.
Not sure why people find the level of info we're getting from Boeing to be controversial. It's pretty much similar to what we know about any product before announcement. For instance before XLR was announced we knew it would be a bigger center tank and a MTOW bump, and everyone just accepted that. Before each mark of the A350 was launched we had some general ideas about payload/range and layout and everyone just accepted them. Here we get some pretty clear description of payload/range and fuse layout, and many have their own pet theory about why it is not what we're being told what it is, and repost them to the point that they swamp out discussion of what we are told the proposal actually is.
A link to the David Neeleman comments would help too. I searched, but all i could find was the standard seating and range numbers.
viewtopic.php?t=1411903&start=250#p21052121 is one such link.
i did find this..
https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... eings-nma/
which seems to reinforce the "small, tight 7-abreast ovoid twin aisle" which the likes of Morrisond and myself think is the only twin aisle configuration that is remotely feasible for NMA.
Glad you could make such a concordance amongst all the discussions of 767neo and bendy pencil-liners.
Because if that is what you believe is in the open regarding the spec, then I have to agree in wondering why we hear so much about 8-across 787 or 767 look-alikes hat have a vanishingly small chance of success in the marketplace, when it is clear what the 797 is going to be.
We're not hearing of the alternatives from Boeing or people briefed by Boeing, we're hearing them from the "I've cracked the code" crowd.
In terms of "building a wide body with narrow body economics being a goal that a.net would get behind, but instead we see the rotten tomatoes fly", I don't see healthy questioning of genuine issues as throwing rotten tomatoes - it is genuine questioning.
In many cases, yes. In some others, clearly not.
I am inclined to wonder how many of those vehemently defending all things 797 on these threads would still "get behind building a wide body with narrow body economics" if it were an Airbus. Call me sceptical
I've been generally positive about all Airbus products not named A380. I'd love to see them take an innovative approach to the Middle of the Market, but it's also clear why they may prefer to "make hay while the sun is shining". I've raised the topic of Airbus UK working on a new narrow body wing a few times now. We also know Faury tells us they will have a response to NMA. It's not too hard to add one to one and get two. Should make for interesting times.
In a similar vein, lots of those gleefully throwing rotten tomatoes or worse at Boeing these days were dead cold silent on the threads about Airbus admitting they can't account for the funds that were provided to middle men involved in various defense and commercial deals and failed to make the required legal disclosures. Call me skeptical.
It would be nice if this really was a forum where genuine enthusiasts could debate real issues without fear of reprisal, and be open to learning from the debate, but sadly the partisanship is almost always hard to bypass. Not all tomatoes are rotten, and not all of them are thrown.
And some tomatoes are shined up to look ready for the table but come with a rotten core.
The 797 programme is NOT beyond questioning, nor should it be
A nice exaggeration for effect kind of statement, but no one made the assertion you are now making.