User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 12:26 pm

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.
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
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 12:55 pm

2175301 wrote:
I have refrained from posting for a few days; and would like to give my opinion at this point on some of the issues raised and debate on this forum:

1) I generally agree with the point that a certain poster was clearly showing (up to that point) a highly negative view and had proposed a whole collection of individually different possibilities; many of which were not plausible given the history and what was known; and could understand why some would see that overall as trolling. It appears to me that individual poster has become more focused and realistic since. I'd like to thank them for that improvement.

2) I agree with that Boeing has not told us what the 797 actually will be, except that its ovid, does not push technology, is focused on manufacturability, focuses on passengers and minimizes extra cargo (no claims that is uses existing containers - any modeling by anyone using and existing container assumption is in my opinion is likely wrong), and is targets to a middle of market target segment. There are strong hints or indications that it seats 7 wide with 2 isles.

Anyone who knows more has signed a NDA and it appears that the NDA has held (no real leaks). A lot of Airline Executives, who have signed such NDA's, have said that they are excited about what Boeing is proposing.

3) I agree with astuteman that there are no long term manufacturing competitive advantages. However, I believe that in this industry there can be short term 5-10 years manufacturing advantages by changes in technology and approach. IF Boeing pulls off what they say the are planning to do in regards to the cost of manufacturing a commercial airliner; it may realistically give Boeing a 5-10 year advantage in the market that they apply it too. Since the MOM market size is not expected to be huge... The proposed 797 will likely end up owning the market segment IF Boeing pulls it off because Airbus will not be able to effectively and economically enter it in a timely manner. In my opinion, that actually reduces the gamble on Boeing's part.

4) I disagree with the concept that the NMA and NSA will share major components (other than perhaps flight deck layout and instruments for possibly a common type rating). My opinion, and my sources, indicate that the NSA concepts are for a much different aircraft; and what Boeing is counting on from the NMA is a refined and fleshed out new manufacturing/procurement strategy that will give the NSA a huge cost advantage over current existing aircraft in the NSA size range. I expect that the NSA will likely be a robust (but not extreme) technology push - using a substantially proven NMA manufacturing/procurement method.

5) I have personally avoided the debates on what is the potential layouts as it is my understanding that Boeing has already worked out what they are offering - in detail - on at least the 1st variant of the proposed 797. I see no reason not to just wait and see what comes out when it is offered for sale. Apparently a lot of airlines are very excited about their detailed concept. Why debate something already decided.

6) It is my understanding from both my source and also released by other sources that the 797 program is sufficiently advanced that they were ready to ask the Board of Directors earlier this year for permission to offer it for sale, that it had passed a key engineering and manufacturing review point: far more advanced than previous projects (lessons learned) - and is near if not at design freeze. That it was not offered for sale (and not part of a major airshow) only because of the 737Max8 issue; which to me is very understandable. I personally do not understand people who keep criticizing Boeing for continuing delays, when their strategy of performing far more engineering and design work up front before program approval has been discussed many times (different than past programs that went astray and damaged their reputation).

Their plans were to offer for sale in 2019, and then if enough orders materialize; authorize full program launch (production) in 2020. My information is that all of that was on track before the 737Max8 issues, and yet could still happen. Boeing has previously used the Offer for sale 1st, and not authorize production unless sufficient sales before; although its been a while (and not on the 787). I take that as one of the lessons learned from the more recent aircraft developments (along with advanced design and modeling up front before even offering for sale).

The 2025 delivery is still possibly plausible; but, may be affected by the 737Max8 issue. In my opinion likely no more than 1 year. It is clear to me from what information I have that the FAA is changing their approval process to ensure an independent 3rd party review of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA); and that in general all companies will need to apply more focus on the FMEA's in the future.

Have a great day,


Very insightful. Posts like these make the forum valuable.

I’m curious what independent 3rd party has the technical ability to evaluate the FMEA. Catching errors in a FMEA is very challenging without significant detailed knowledge of the design and its philosophy. I don’t know who other than the manufacturer and it’s suppliers could be a third party other than the FMEA.

On of the biggest challenges COMAC and other startup aviation companies have is that they struggle with getting the FMEA done and approved. Outsourcing certification work to suppliers like COMAC did was not too successful. I really am curious who would be reviewing NMA FMEA other than FAA and suppliers responsible for parts of the design.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:26 pm

morrisond wrote:
Start with an efficient space design like an A321 and add 10% more seats for 797-6(than A321) and 15% more than that for 797-7 - what lengths do you get at 7AB and 8AB? It won't make that big of a difference whether or not you assume the A321 seats 160, 180 or 208 - just add 10% and about 15% on top of that..

The 767, 787, A330 all have lengths 14m longer than the cabin length. The 777 is 15.3m longer than the cabin length. The bigger the aircraft the greater the taper of the nose and tail. The 767-200 actually has a shorter cabin length than the A321 yet it is much longer due to the tapers.

I have no idea why you think the 797 has 10% and 15% more seats than the A321. This is completely wrong. The 797-6 and 797-7 will have 20% and 40% more seats than A321. This is based on the seating values we have for the 797 provided by Boeing and we have their exact standard for seat size.

The A321 can fit between 212 and 216 seats at 31inch pitch.

31inch pitch is what Boeing uses for its narrowbody economy seats. The 797 seating numbers are 258 and 302 seats in 1 class. This is exactly 20% and 40% larger than the A321. The 258 and 302 numbers are calculated off the 2 class numbers we have been given.

The 797-8 will probably have 60% more seats than the A321 when using the same size seats. Going from the A321's 6ab to 7ab adds only 16.6% more seats. To increase the seat count by 60% the 797-8 would then need a cabin length 38% longer. That is an extra 12 metres and longer than the 757-300. Then you add the larger taper and you have a 60m long aircraft that is 4.2m high. Skinnier than a 757-300.

8ab adds 33% more seats over 6ab. As the 797-8 will have 60% more seats than the A321 the cabin length will only need to be 20% longer. The fineness ratio of the three 8ab 797 models will be nearly exactly the same as the three 787 models.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:28 pm

seahawk wrote:
I would not say that the early A330 versions were much more refined when it came to using space.


No - but at some point they were - combined with the increase in range allowed it kill the 767 passenger versions eventually.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:32 pm

The 2025 delivery is still possibly plausible


I guess we all know this is not going to happen. But we like the idea & stick with it.

Programs during the last 20 years took 7-8 years, even upgrades.

In terms of company condition, priorities and closing the business case, the 797 program is not a shoe-in.

So NMA 2027 Entry Into Service would be the more robust forecast, as used by independent observers at this stage.

Boeing will probably confirm the slipped timeline soon.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
morrisond
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 2:33 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Start with an efficient space design like an A321 and add 10% more seats for 797-6(than A321) and 15% more than that for 797-7 - what lengths do you get at 7AB and 8AB? It won't make that big of a difference whether or not you assume the A321 seats 160, 180 or 208 - just add 10% and about 15% on top of that..

The 767, 787, A330 all have lengths 14m longer than the cabin length. The 777 is 15.3m longer than the cabin length. The bigger the aircraft the greater the taper of the nose and tail. The 767-200 actually has a shorter cabin length than the A321 yet it is much longer due to the tapers.

I have no idea why you think the 797 has 10% and 15% more seats than the A321. This is completely wrong. The 797-6 and 797-7 will have 20% and 40% more seats than A321. This is based on the seating values we have for the 797 provided by Boeing and we have their exact standard for seat size.

The A321 can fit between 212 and 216 seats at 31inch pitch.

31inch pitch is what Boeing uses for its narrowbody economy seats. The 797 seating numbers are 258 and 302 seats in 1 class. This is exactly 20% and 40% larger than the A321. The 258 and 302 numbers are calculated off the 2 class numbers we have been given.

The 797-8 will probably have 60% more seats than the A321 when using the same size seats. Going from the A321's 6ab to 7ab adds only 16.6% more seats. To increase the seat count by 60% the 797-8 would then need a cabin length 38% longer. That is an extra 12 metres and longer than the 757-300. Then you add the larger taper and you have a 60m long aircraft that is 4.2m high. Skinnier than a 757-300.

8ab adds 33% more seats over 6ab. As the 797-8 will have 60% more seats than the A321 the cabin length will only need to be 20% longer. The fineness ratio of the three 8ab 797 models will be nearly exactly the same as the three 787 models.


I meant 10% and 25% bigger than A321.

Airbus quotes the A321 as 208 seats 2 Class - 10% more is 228 - right about 797-6 size and and 25% more than 208 is - wait for it - about 260.

On the Airbus 321XLR website they actually quote 2 class capacity at 180-220 seats https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passeng ... ml#a321xlr

I would think Boeing marketing claims are closer to Airbus marketing claims than whatever numbers we derive on A-net.

We will have to agree to disagree - I think an eventual 797-8 might be 40% larger but not 60% - you are getting into the size of the 788 then.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 3:06 pm

Pudelhund wrote:
2175301 wrote:
I have refrained from posting for a few days; and would like to give my opinion at this point on some of the issues raised and debate on this forum:

1) I generally agree with the point that a certain poster was clearly showing (up to that point) a highly negative view and had proposed a whole collection of individually different possibilities; many of which were not plausible given the history and what was known; and could understand why some would see that overall as trolling. It appears to me that individual poster has become more focused and realistic since. I'd like to thank them for that improvement.

2) I agree with that Boeing has not told us what the 797 actually will be, except that its ovid, does not push technology, is focused on manufacturability, focuses on passengers and minimizes extra cargo (no claims that is uses existing containers - any modeling by anyone using and existing container assumption is in my opinion is likely wrong), and is targets to a middle of market target segment. There are strong hints or indications that it seats 7 wide with 2 isles.

Anyone who knows more has signed a NDA and it appears that the NDA has held (no real leaks). A lot of Airline Executives, who have signed such NDA's, have said that they are excited about what Boeing is proposing.

3) I agree with astuteman that there are no long term manufacturing competitive advantages. However, I believe that in this industry there can be short term 5-10 years manufacturing advantages by changes in technology and approach. IF Boeing pulls off what they say the are planning to do in regards to the cost of manufacturing a commercial airliner; it may realistically give Boeing a 5-10 year advantage in the market that they apply it too. Since the MOM market size is not expected to be huge... The proposed 797 will likely end up owning the market segment IF Boeing pulls it off because Airbus will not be able to effectively and economically enter it in a timely manner. In my opinion, that actually reduces the gamble on Boeing's part.

4) I disagree with the concept that the NMA and NSA will share major components (other than perhaps flight deck layout and instruments for possibly a common type rating). My opinion, and my sources, indicate that the NSA concepts are for a much different aircraft; and what Boeing is counting on from the NMA is a refined and fleshed out new manufacturing/procurement strategy that will give the NSA a huge cost advantage over current existing aircraft in the NSA size range. I expect that the NSA will likely be a robust (but not extreme) technology push - using a substantially proven NMA manufacturing/procurement method.

5) I have personally avoided the debates on what is the potential layouts as it is my understanding that Boeing has already worked out what they are offering - in detail - on at least the 1st variant of the proposed 797. I see no reason not to just wait and see what comes out when it is offered for sale. Apparently a lot of airlines are very excited about their detailed concept. Why debate something already decided.

6) It is my understanding from both my source and also released by other sources that the 797 program is sufficiently advanced that they were ready to ask the Board of Directors earlier this year for permission to offer it for sale, that it had passed a key engineering and manufacturing review point: far more advanced than previous projects (lessons learned) - and is near if not at design freeze. That it was not offered for sale (and not part of a major airshow) only because of the 737Max8 issue; which to me is very understandable. I personally do not understand people who keep criticizing Boeing for continuing delays, when their strategy of performing far more engineering and design work up front before program approval has been discussed many times (different than past programs that went astray and damaged their reputation).

Their plans were to offer for sale in 2019, and then if enough orders materialize; authorize full program launch (production) in 2020. My information is that all of that was on track before the 737Max8 issues, and yet could still happen. Boeing has previously used the Offer for sale 1st, and not authorize production unless sufficient sales before; although its been a while (and not on the 787). I take that as one of the lessons learned from the more recent aircraft developments (along with advanced design and modeling up front before even offering for sale).

The 2025 delivery is still possibly plausible; but, may be affected by the 737Max8 issue. In my opinion likely no more than 1 year. It is clear to me from what information I have that the FAA is changing their approval process to ensure an independent 3rd party review of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA); and that in general all companies will need to apply more focus on the FMEA's in the future.

Have a great day,


This is the best post in this thread as of late. Thank you for your input.


I agree, 2175301 hit it out of the park.

In point 4, I diverge a bit. I see the NMA and NSA having a lot in common. Things like air packs, APU, actuators, flap tracks, folding wing mechanics, doors, lavs, windows, nav lights, deicing systems, pumps, etc will be of the same design but sized 15% different. Other elements like circuit breakers would have a common set of ampacities. The structure will be 'new' but of similar design and manufacture method.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 3:25 pm

morrisond wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:

Looking at the NMA7-200 section inserting a compression strut just above the ceiling to support the bins there would allow a circular arc from the floor beams to this strut, then a flatter arc above the strut. The shell would then be 4 circular arcs with the sides being one radius, the bottom a 2nd and the top a flatter 3rd radius. This would be reasonably efficient and keeps the floor beams in tension. Assuming hinges in the shell at the strut/floor connection, the side radius puts tension into the strut and floor beams, but the flatter radius top and bottom would cause compression, so probably a net tension in the floor and a net compression in the ceiling strut under internal pressure. Most importantly, this approach reduces the rib moment at the windows where the thinnest members are needed.

I've done similar stays in flat oval pressure vessels, sure they are heavier than a circular section but not substantially.

That's an interesting concept. So if you take a plane with a big crown, like the 777 or 747, and put a strut across the ceiling, then flatten the roof, and put a tension strut from the ceiling to the roof to hold it flat from buldging back to circular? I've seen the Jon Ostrower article that shows the 797 with a circular top and a flat bottom, which I assume they can get with the struts beneath the floor. I wonder if this all pencils out by weight and cost, but the concept of using struts structurally to decrease the surface area seems like a good idea.


The other concept I've heard is half a Circle on top with 1/3 or 1/4 of a larger diameter circle on bottom - would that not be relatively simple to build and take care of the floor compression issues?


Circular arcs 'hinged' at the floor beams is pretty common in aviation, I believe the term is a double bubble. But a circular arc that is wide enough at the shoulder level has excess area in the crown. The A380 introduced arcs from the lower floor to upper floor beams, what I am suggesting is similar but the strut (upper floor beam) can be very light as its only vertical load is the bins and ceiling. The circular top arc could have a higher radius than the 777, yes the hoop stress in the shell scales with the radius but is still more efficient than a beam. I envisioned a single strut, but it could be done like a bow truss by adding some web members.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 3:47 pm

Aerospace analyst Ron Epstein posed a tough question on the status of the New Midmarket Airplane, noting problems with the 787, 747-8, MAX and KC-46A as the problems facing a decision on NMA.

Muilenburg acknowledged that design and production risk are part of the business case analysis before green-lighting the NMA. He said that returning the MAX to service is the first priority and that a decision on NMA won’t be tied to an artificial deadline.


https://leehamnews.com/2019/07/24/boeing-warns-of-production-reduction-complete-shut-down-of-max-return-to-service-delayed-beyond-4th-quarter/#comments
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
DenverTed
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 3:59 pm

keesje wrote:
Aerospace analyst Ron Epstein posed a tough question on the status of the New Midmarket Airplane, noting problems with the 787, 747-8, MAX and KC-46A as the problems facing a decision on NMA.

Muilenburg acknowledged that design and production risk are part of the business case analysis before green-lighting the NMA. He said that returning the MAX to service is the first priority and that a decision on NMA won’t be tied to an artificial deadline.


https://leehamnews.com/2019/07/24/boeing-warns-of-production-reduction-complete-shut-down-of-max-return-to-service-delayed-beyond-4th-quarter/#comments

This is all your fault Keesje.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:04 pm

Just because they do not launch, it does not mean they are not working on it. The closer the EiS to the formal launch, the less changes the competition has to react or copy the 797.-
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3096
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:06 pm

seahawk wrote:
Just because they do not launch, it does not mean they are not working on it. The closer the EiS to the formal launch, the less changes the competition has to react or copy the 797.-


You beat me to it.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3096
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:08 pm

Deleted.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:18 pm

morrisond wrote:
I meant 10% and 25% bigger than A321.

Airbus quotes the A321 as 208 seats 2 Class - 10% more is 228 - right about 797-6 size and and 25% more than 208 is - wait for it - about 260.

On the Airbus 321XLR website they actually quote 2 class capacity at 180-220 seats https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passeng ... ml#a321xlr

Please show me a seatmap if A321 with 208 seats in two class. 220 seats in 2 class is a ridiculous claim they could add a couple inchs of legroom to just the first row of a ridiculously tight cabin and call it two class. You and I both know this is misleading and one row of extra pitch on an A321 can not compare to Boeings two class standard that has multiple rows of wider recliners.

Here is Jetstar with 220 seats 1 class and a tight 29inch pitch.
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Jetst ... _A321.php#

You continue to compare apple to oranges by using different seat pitch. Boeing does not use 28inch pitch seats when giving seat numbers for its aircraft so please do not compare them to the A321 numbers using 28inch pitch.

You are trying extremely hard to make the 797 appear smaller in size to fit your crazy shared NSA/NMA idea.

I will repeat myself again comparing apples to apples. Boeing uses the same two class seat standard for both the 737 and 767. They both fit 13% more seats in a single class cabin using 31inch pitch. Adding 13% to the 797 seat numbers we then get 258 and 302 seats when using 31inch pitch.

Now the A321 fits 212-216 seats when using 31inch pitch. Jetstar fit 220 seats with 29inch pitch and 230 seats with 28inch pitch.

The 797-6 at 258 seats has 20% more seats than the 212-216 in the A321.

The 797-7 at 302 seats has 40% more seats than the 212-216 in the A321.

Please stop.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3096
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:18 pm

2175301 wrote:
I have refrained from posting for a few days; and would like to give my opinion at this point on some of the issues raised and debate on this forum:

1) I generally agree with the point that a certain poster was clearly showing (up to that point) a highly negative view and had proposed a whole collection of individually different possibilities; many of which were not plausible given the history and what was known; and could understand why some would see that overall as trolling. It appears to me that individual poster has become more focused and realistic since. I'd like to thank them for that improvement.

2) I agree with that Boeing has not told us what the 797 actually will be, except that its ovid, does not push technology, is focused on manufacturability, focuses on passengers and minimizes extra cargo (no claims that is uses existing containers - any modeling by anyone using and existing container assumption is in my opinion is likely wrong), and is targets to a middle of market target segment. There are strong hints or indications that it seats 7 wide with 2 isles.

Anyone who knows more has signed a NDA and it appears that the NDA has held (no real leaks). A lot of Airline Executives, who have signed such NDA's, have said that they are excited about what Boeing is proposing.

3) I agree with astuteman that there are no long term manufacturing competitive advantages. However, I believe that in this industry there can be short term 5-10 years manufacturing advantages by changes in technology and approach. IF Boeing pulls off what they say the are planning to do in regards to the cost of manufacturing a commercial airliner; it may realistically give Boeing a 5-10 year advantage in the market that they apply it too. Since the MOM market size is not expected to be huge... The proposed 797 will likely end up owning the market segment IF Boeing pulls it off because Airbus will not be able to effectively and economically enter it in a timely manner. In my opinion, that actually reduces the gamble on Boeing's part.

4) I disagree with the concept that the NMA and NSA will share major components (other than perhaps flight deck layout and instruments for possibly a common type rating). My opinion, and my sources, indicate that the NSA concepts are for a much different aircraft; and what Boeing is counting on from the NMA is a refined and fleshed out new manufacturing/procurement strategy that will give the NSA a huge cost advantage over current existing aircraft in the NSA size range. I expect that the NSA will likely be a robust (but not extreme) technology push - using a substantially proven NMA manufacturing/procurement method.

5) I have personally avoided the debates on what is the potential layouts as it is my understanding that Boeing has already worked out what they are offering - in detail - on at least the 1st variant of the proposed 797. I see no reason not to just wait and see what comes out when it is offered for sale. Apparently a lot of airlines are very excited about their detailed concept. Why debate something already decided.

6) It is my understanding from both my source and also released by other sources that the 797 program is sufficiently advanced that they were ready to ask the Board of Directors earlier this year for permission to offer it for sale, that it had passed a key engineering and manufacturing review point: far more advanced than previous projects (lessons learned) - and is near if not at design freeze. That it was not offered for sale (and not part of a major airshow) only because of the 737Max8 issue; which to me is very understandable. I personally do not understand people who keep criticizing Boeing for continuing delays, when their strategy of performing far more engineering and design work up front before program approval has been discussed many times (different than past programs that went astray and damaged their reputation).

Their plans were to offer for sale in 2019, and then if enough orders materialize; authorize full program launch (production) in 2020. My information is that all of that was on track before the 737Max8 issues, and yet could still happen. Boeing has previously used the Offer for sale 1st, and not authorize production unless sufficient sales before; although its been a while (and not on the 787). I take that as one of the lessons learned from the more recent aircraft developments (along with advanced design and modeling up front before even offering for sale).

The 2025 delivery is still possibly plausible; but, may be affected by the 737Max8 issue. In my opinion likely no more than 1 year. It is clear to me from what information I have that the FAA is changing their approval process to ensure an independent 3rd party review of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA); and that in general all companies will need to apply more focus on the FMEA's in the future.

Have a great day,


Thank you for the informative post. This is why we come to Anet. Thank you again.l
 
morrisond
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:55 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
morrisond wrote:
I meant 10% and 25% bigger than A321.

Airbus quotes the A321 as 208 seats 2 Class - 10% more is 228 - right about 797-6 size and and 25% more than 208 is - wait for it - about 260.

On the Airbus 321XLR website they actually quote 2 class capacity at 180-220 seats https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passeng ... ml#a321xlr

Please show me a seatmap if A321 with 208 seats in two class. 220 seats in 2 class is a ridiculous claim they could add a couple inchs of legroom to just the first row of a ridiculously tight cabin and call it two class. You and I both know this is misleading and one row of extra pitch on an A321 can not compare to Boeings two class standard that has multiple rows of wider recliners.

Here is Jetstar with 220 seats 1 class and a tight 29inch pitch.
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Jetst ... _A321.php#

You continue to compare apple to oranges by using different seat pitch. Boeing does not use 28inch pitch seats when giving seat numbers for its aircraft so please do not compare them to the A321 numbers using 28inch pitch.

You are trying extremely hard to make the 797 appear smaller in size to fit your crazy shared NSA/NMA idea.

I will repeat myself again comparing apples to apples. Boeing uses the same two class seat standard for both the 737 and 767. They both fit 13% more seats in a single class cabin using 31inch pitch. Adding 13% to the 797 seat numbers we then get 258 and 302 seats when using 31inch pitch.

Now the A321 fits 212-216 seats when using 31inch pitch. Jetstar fit 220 seats with 29inch pitch and 230 seats with 28inch pitch.

The 797-6 at 258 seats has 20% more seats than the 212-216 in the A321.

The 797-7 at 302 seats has 40% more seats than the 212-216 in the A321.

Please stop.


My guess that NMA/NSA will eventually be a combined program is a lot less crazy than your suggestion that NMA will be 8W

Here is a seat Map for a Rouge A321 with 200 seats in three class - albeit with 29" pitch in Y - but 34" in Y+ - and this is without the changes Airbus is making with it's SpaceFlex cabin which will add space.

https://seatguru.com/airlines/Air_Canad ... s_A321.php

Airbus says they can now get 244 seats into an A321 with Space Flex.

You have no idea what seat pitch Boeing is using on NMA.
 
Dupli
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:29 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:51 pm

seahawk wrote:
Just because they do not launch, it does not mean they are not working on it. The closer the EiS to the formal launch, the less changes the competition has to react or copy the 797.-


Boeing is not making the plane alone. Are suppliers investing the amount of resources necessary to deliver in 2025, without formal commitment from Boeing that they will even be on the plane? Do they need to?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 6:16 pm

Dupli wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Just because they do not launch, it does not mean they are not working on it. The closer the EiS to the formal launch, the less changes the competition has to react or copy the 797.-


Boeing is not making the plane alone. Are suppliers investing the amount of resources necessary to deliver in 2025, without formal commitment from Boeing that they will even be on the plane? Do they need to?

As they want to move more work in house and change the supplier - manufacturer partnership, they might only need a few to play ball.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 6:45 pm

morrisond wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
morrisond wrote:
I meant 10% and 25% bigger than A321.

Airbus quotes the A321 as 208 seats 2 Class - 10% more is 228 - right about 797-6 size and and 25% more than 208 is - wait for it - about 260.

On the Airbus 321XLR website they actually quote 2 class capacity at 180-220 seats https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passeng ... ml#a321xlr

Please show me a seatmap if A321 with 208 seats in two class. 220 seats in 2 class is a ridiculous claim they could add a couple inchs of legroom to just the first row of a ridiculously tight cabin and call it two class. You and I both know this is misleading and one row of extra pitch on an A321 can not compare to Boeings two class standard that has multiple rows of wider recliners.

Here is Jetstar with 220 seats 1 class and a tight 29inch pitch.
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Jetst ... _A321.php#

You continue to compare apple to oranges by using different seat pitch. Boeing does not use 28inch pitch seats when giving seat numbers for its aircraft so please do not compare them to the A321 numbers using 28inch pitch.

You are trying extremely hard to make the 797 appear smaller in size to fit your crazy shared NSA/NMA idea.

I will repeat myself again comparing apples to apples. Boeing uses the same two class seat standard for both the 737 and 767. They both fit 13% more seats in a single class cabin using 31inch pitch. Adding 13% to the 797 seat numbers we then get 258 and 302 seats when using 31inch pitch.

Now the A321 fits 212-216 seats when using 31inch pitch. Jetstar fit 220 seats with 29inch pitch and 230 seats with 28inch pitch.

The 797-6 at 258 seats has 20% more seats than the 212-216 in the A321.

The 797-7 at 302 seats has 40% more seats than the 212-216 in the A321.

Please stop.


My guess that NMA/NSA will eventually be a combined program is a lot less crazy than your suggestion that NMA will be 8W

Here is a seat Map for a Rouge A321 with 200 seats in three class - albeit with 29" pitch in Y - but 34" in Y+ - and this is without the changes Airbus is making with it's SpaceFlex cabin which will add space.

https://seatguru.com/airlines/Air_Canad ... s_A321.php

Airbus says they can now get 244 seats into an A321 with Space Flex.

You have no idea what seat pitch Boeing is using on NMA.

If they did go 8w for the -6/7, what would be possible for a shorter range aircraft with that fuselage? Can an 8w be re-winged a folding wing that fits into a 36m gate? At 3,000nm max range and 45m to 50m length, with 20% more seats than an A321, it could have some impressive economics. Twin aisle for 1 to 4 hour flights is coming back in some form, driven by airport constraints, IMO.
The advantage of 2-3-2, is that it can be smaller, within 10% of the A321, which I think is a big advantage.
Even leaner would be 2-2-2 with 200 seats for WN. A different business model, but like free bags, boarding, and ticket policies, I think 2-2-2 would generate loyalty and paying a small premium for that as well.
 
Strato2
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 7:08 pm

Boeing will not launch the "797". They know that at the moment they pull the trigger Airbus will announce an A321 stretch with a re-wing for a fraction of the cost of a clean sheet new aircraft together with the production efficiences that 60 planes per month brings. This will make the business case for the "797" untenable. More believable is that Boeing will launch a 737 replacement because of the MAX fiasco.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 24, 2019 7:17 pm

DenverTed wrote:
keesje wrote:
Aerospace analyst Ron Epstein posed a tough question on the status of the New Midmarket Airplane, noting problems with the 787, 747-8, MAX and KC-46A as the problems facing a decision on NMA.

Muilenburg acknowledged that design and production risk are part of the business case analysis before green-lighting the NMA. He said that returning the MAX to service is the first priority and that a decision on NMA won’t be tied to an artificial deadline.


https://leehamnews.com/2019/07/24/boeing-warns-of-production-reduction-complete-shut-down-of-max-return-to-service-delayed-beyond-4th-quarter/#comments

This is all your fault Keesje.


:bigthumbsup: :worried:

This situation isn’t new today, it’s just the awareness of a bigger public.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:18 am

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... es-459890/

I thought the engine decision would have already been made. The quotes to me sound like Pratt lost to GE. Pratt will offer an engine in the future if Boeing wants it.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6862
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:20 am

Revelation wrote:
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.


Something in my posting appears to have tweaked you a lot more than I had expected.
My apologies if that was the case. No harm was meant.

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 had not intended to "shift the conversation", nor recognised that I had.
In the context of the endless 8-abreast v 7-abreast debate I had interpreted your comment to mean that Boeing had specifically told us which of these configurations it was going to be, but I had missed it. Clearly they haven't, but have only released the general capacity and range characteristics

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.


For what it's worth I would normally have expected better of you than this sarcasm which I felt was unwarranted in response to my genuine comments.
If I can offer a defence, I at least went to the lengths of finding a link that demonstrates that, according to Jon Ostrower at least, the concordance between Morrisond and myself extends to "those in the know", including Scott Kirby at UA and Ed Bastian at DL. I feel that should carry more weight perhaps than a poor interpretation of an "artists impression" :)

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.


Agreed. .

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. .


Something I've learned over time, "skeptical", is that there are always those who exhibit a particularly strong bias one way or another. It happens on both sides of the coin. The truth is we all exhibit this trait to greater or lesser degrees.
I've learned over time that it is usually best to try to ignore the tomato throwers and focus on those adding genuine contribution to the debate. Sometimes easier said than done, I know.

And I have to agree that the MAX saga has signalled open season on Boeing for some of the most ridiculous and outrageous posting imaginable (not for this thread), and I'm sure that is open wound for frustration. I get that. :yes:

And some tomatoes are shined up to look ready for the table but come with a rotten core.


I won't disagree. But there are more than enough people bigging up the 797 claims without any objective analysis of the relative merits and de-merits of the case for the 797, to justify calling this the "anti 797 thread". It does work both ways.

The 797 programme is NOT beyond questioning, nor should it be
A nice exaggeration for effect kind of statement,


A bit like calling this "the anti 797 thread", perhaps? ;)

you are right.
There should be a lot more genuine, exciting debate to be had out of these threads.
It will be really fascinating to watch the saga of whether Boeing can really produce a "market disruptor" unfold.
The trick to unlocking that is to step carefully round the rotten tomatoes :)

Rgds
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2906
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Jul 26, 2019 10:47 am

astuteman wrote:
whether Boeing can really produce a "market disruptor" unfold.


Some would suggests you use the word "another" in front of "market disruptor".

From a historic sense, would you say the 777 and 787 were market disruptors in their own time? 777 opened up transpacific to twins and basically killed off the quads. 787 opened up transpacific to secondary cities and may yet quicken the retirement of it's older sibling.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
giblets
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:34 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:44 am

I'm not convinced that the 2025 launch is still conceivable after the Max debacle.
If it was a straight delay due to the MAX (I.e the engine delays) I would consider this possible (although unlikely), however the issues the MAX have raised SHOULD affect every level of introduction; Internal oversight, risk analysis, design, internal regs, Talking of which, and as mentions d before the FAA are not going to give them an easy ride this time.
Boeing are going to have to go back and look at each and every decisions and analysis....


or at least they should be if they have learnt any lessons


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
146, ATR72, Q400, Saab 340, PA-46 Jetprop, Jetstream, E175/195, 707/727/737/747/757/767/777, DC-3/9/10, MD-11/80, A300/310/319/320/321/330/340/350/380 Tristar, BAC 1-11, Trident, Chipmunk, Bell 206/222, Chinook, Puma, Cessna 172, Fokker 70, 100, SRN4!
 
BlatantEcho
Posts: 2098
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 28, 2019 11:04 am

^^^^

So, if you are right (which I doubt), how better a way to apply those lessons than a clean sheet new plane?
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3003
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:53 pm

It is equally possible that the MAX debacle increases the need for a 797 announcement. Boeing needs to be seen doing something right.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
brindabella
Posts: 569
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:03 pm

2175301 wrote:
I have refrained from posting for a few days; and would like to give my opinion at this point on some of the issues raised and debate on this forum:

1) I generally agree with the point that a certain poster was clearly showing (up to that point) a highly negative view and had proposed a whole collection of individually different possibilities; many of which were not plausible given the history and what was known; and could understand why some would see that overall as trolling. It appears to me that individual poster has become more focused and realistic since. I'd like to thank them for that improvement.

2) I agree with that Boeing has not told us what the 797 actually will be, except that its ovid, does not push technology, is focused on manufacturability, focuses on passengers and minimizes extra cargo (no claims that is uses existing containers - any modeling by anyone using and existing container assumption is in my opinion is likely wrong), and is targets to a middle of market target segment. There are strong hints or indications that it seats 7 wide with 2 isles.

Anyone who knows more has signed a NDA and it appears that the NDA has held (no real leaks). A lot of Airline Executives, who have signed such NDA's, have said that they are excited about what Boeing is proposing.

3) I agree with astuteman that there are no long term manufacturing competitive advantages. However, I believe that in this industry there can be short term 5-10 years manufacturing advantages by changes in technology and approach. IF Boeing pulls off what they say the are planning to do in regards to the cost of manufacturing a commercial airliner; it may realistically give Boeing a 5-10 year advantage in the market that they apply it too. Since the MOM market size is not expected to be huge... The proposed 797 will likely end up owning the market segment IF Boeing pulls it off because Airbus will not be able to effectively and economically enter it in a timely manner. In my opinion, that actually reduces the gamble on Boeing's part.

4) I disagree with the concept that the NMA and NSA will share major components (other than perhaps flight deck layout and instruments for possibly a common type rating). My opinion, and my sources, indicate that the NSA concepts are for a much different aircraft; and what Boeing is counting on from the NMA is a refined and fleshed out new manufacturing/procurement strategy that will give the NSA a huge cost advantage over current existing aircraft in the NSA size range. I expect that the NSA will likely be a robust (but not extreme) technology push - using a substantially proven NMA manufacturing/procurement method.

5) I have personally avoided the debates on what is the potential layouts as it is my understanding that Boeing has already worked out what they are offering - in detail - on at least the 1st variant of the proposed 797. I see no reason not to just wait and see what comes out when it is offered for sale. Apparently a lot of airlines are very excited about their detailed concept. Why debate something already decided.

6) It is my understanding from both my source and also released by other sources that the 797 program is sufficiently advanced that they were ready to ask the Board of Directors earlier this year for permission to offer it for sale, that it had passed a key engineering and manufacturing review point: far more advanced than previous projects (lessons learned) - and is near if not at design freeze. That it was not offered for sale (and not part of a major airshow) only because of the 737Max8 issue; which to me is very understandable. I personally do not understand people who keep criticizing Boeing for continuing delays, when their strategy of performing far more engineering and design work up front before program approval has been discussed many times (different than past programs that went astray and damaged their reputation).

Their plans were to offer for sale in 2019, and then if enough orders materialize; authorize full program launch (production) in 2020. My information is that all of that was on track before the 737Max8 issues, and yet could still happen. Boeing has previously used the Offer for sale 1st, and not authorize production unless sufficient sales before; although its been a while (and not on the 787). I take that as one of the lessons learned from the more recent aircraft developments (along with advanced design and modeling up front before even offering for sale).

The 2025 delivery is still possibly plausible; but, may be affected by the 737Max8 issue. In my opinion likely no more than 1 year. It is clear to me from what information I have that the FAA is changing their approval process to ensure an independent 3rd party review of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA); and that in general all companies will need to apply more focus on the FMEA's in the future.

Have a great day,


Hi, I went back to the original of your post as it has been referenced a number of times - allow me to add further congrats. :checkmark:

I have highlighted the above (forgive me) because it sees to me that the massive sales figures in the AB & BA market forecasts indicate two changes from past thinking:

1) severe optimisation will start from day1 of the design of a new type; and
2) the NSA will NOT require an advantage of 10%+ (Or whatever) over the current NBs; so
3) say 6% will do just fine to unlock a treasure-trove for the bold OEM (as long as that player can get their industrialisation right!).
Billy
 
Redsand187
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:47 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:31 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
It is equally possible that the MAX debacle increases the need for a 797 announcement. Boeing needs to be seen doing something right.

They need to be seen as doing something right but announcing a completely new plane right now will be hit with huge public criticism. The media will drag them through the mud. It's going to happen no matter what, but right now it will be a very high profile shaming.

The news will say that Boeing is again releasing another new plane after being plagued with problems on their 2 most recent commercial aircraft launches and suggesting that the 797 will be the hat-trick for Boeing. No matter when the 797 is announced, Boeing will face criticism and there will be a lack of faith in the company's ability to bring a safe and reliable plane to market. But doing so before they even fix the last plane will just open them up to be slaughtered by the press.

A well-researched reporter will also bring in all of the issues with KC46 and the delivery halts to suggest that there is a major culture problem at Boeing and that anything they do is highly suspect.

The longer they can wait to delay the announcement without majorly delaying the program the better.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:10 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
morrisond wrote:
I meant 10% and 25% bigger than A321.

Airbus quotes the A321 as 208 seats 2 Class - 10% more is 228 - right about 797-6 size and and 25% more than 208 is - wait for it - about 260.

On the Airbus 321XLR website they actually quote 2 class capacity at 180-220 seats https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passeng ... ml#a321xlr

Please show me a seatmap if A321 with 208 seats in two class. 220 seats in 2 class is a ridiculous claim they could add a couple inchs of legroom to just the first row of a ridiculously tight cabin and call it two class. You and I both know this is misleading and one row of extra pitch on an A321 can not compare to Boeings two class standard that has multiple rows of wider recliners.

Here is Jetstar with 220 seats 1 class and a tight 29inch pitch.
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Jetst ... _A321.php#

You continue to compare apple to oranges by using different seat pitch. Boeing does not use 28inch pitch seats when giving seat numbers for its aircraft so please do not compare them to the A321 numbers using 28inch pitch.

You are trying extremely hard to make the 797 appear smaller in size to fit your crazy shared NSA/NMA idea.

I will repeat myself again comparing apples to apples. Boeing uses the same two class seat standard for both the 737 and 767. They both fit 13% more seats in a single class cabin using 31inch pitch. Adding 13% to the 797 seat numbers we then get 258 and 302 seats when using 31inch pitch.

Now the A321 fits 212-216 seats when using 31inch pitch. Jetstar fit 220 seats with 29inch pitch and 230 seats with 28inch pitch.

The 797-6 at 258 seats has 20% more seats than the 212-216 in the A321.

The 797-7 at 302 seats has 40% more seats than the 212-216 in the A321.

Please stop.


Interesting, good to know both companies use different seat pitch for their quoted capacities. Always wondered how Airbus was able to quote an A321 with more 1 class seating than a 757-200.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:02 pm

Elementalism wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
morrisond wrote:
I meant 10% and 25% bigger than A321.

Airbus quotes the A321 as 208 seats 2 Class - 10% more is 228 - right about 797-6 size and and 25% more than 208 is - wait for it - about 260.

On the Airbus 321XLR website they actually quote 2 class capacity at 180-220 seats https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passeng ... ml#a321xlr

Please show me a seatmap if A321 with 208 seats in two class. 220 seats in 2 class is a ridiculous claim they could add a couple inchs of legroom to just the first row of a ridiculously tight cabin and call it two class. You and I both know this is misleading and one row of extra pitch on an A321 can not compare to Boeings two class standard that has multiple rows of wider recliners.

Here is Jetstar with 220 seats 1 class and a tight 29inch pitch.
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Jetst ... _A321.php#

You continue to compare apple to oranges by using different seat pitch. Boeing does not use 28inch pitch seats when giving seat numbers for its aircraft so please do not compare them to the A321 numbers using 28inch pitch.

You are trying extremely hard to make the 797 appear smaller in size to fit your crazy shared NSA/NMA idea.

I will repeat myself again comparing apples to apples. Boeing uses the same two class seat standard for both the 737 and 767. They both fit 13% more seats in a single class cabin using 31inch pitch. Adding 13% to the 797 seat numbers we then get 258 and 302 seats when using 31inch pitch.

Now the A321 fits 212-216 seats when using 31inch pitch. Jetstar fit 220 seats with 29inch pitch and 230 seats with 28inch pitch.

The 797-6 at 258 seats has 20% more seats than the 212-216 in the A321.

The 797-7 at 302 seats has 40% more seats than the 212-216 in the A321.

Please stop.


Interesting, good to know both companies use different seat pitch for their quoted capacities. Always wondered how Airbus was able to quote an A321 with more 1 class seating than a 757-200.


He conveniently ignored my reply from above - we have no idea what seat pitch Boeing is using.

My post from above reposted below.

"Here is a seat Map for a Rouge A321 with 200 seats in three class - albeit with 29" pitch in Y - but 34" in Y+ - and this is without the changes Airbus is making with it's SpaceFlex cabin which will add space.

https://seatguru.com/airlines/Air_Canad ... s_A321.php

Airbus says they can now get 244 seats into an A321 with Space Flex.

You have no idea what seat pitch Boeing is using on NMA."
 
Elementalism
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:22 pm

morrisond wrote:
Elementalism wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Please show me a seatmap if A321 with 208 seats in two class. 220 seats in 2 class is a ridiculous claim they could add a couple inchs of legroom to just the first row of a ridiculously tight cabin and call it two class. You and I both know this is misleading and one row of extra pitch on an A321 can not compare to Boeings two class standard that has multiple rows of wider recliners.

Here is Jetstar with 220 seats 1 class and a tight 29inch pitch.
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Jetst ... _A321.php#

You continue to compare apple to oranges by using different seat pitch. Boeing does not use 28inch pitch seats when giving seat numbers for its aircraft so please do not compare them to the A321 numbers using 28inch pitch.

You are trying extremely hard to make the 797 appear smaller in size to fit your crazy shared NSA/NMA idea.

I will repeat myself again comparing apples to apples. Boeing uses the same two class seat standard for both the 737 and 767. They both fit 13% more seats in a single class cabin using 31inch pitch. Adding 13% to the 797 seat numbers we then get 258 and 302 seats when using 31inch pitch.

Now the A321 fits 212-216 seats when using 31inch pitch. Jetstar fit 220 seats with 29inch pitch and 230 seats with 28inch pitch.

The 797-6 at 258 seats has 20% more seats than the 212-216 in the A321.

The 797-7 at 302 seats has 40% more seats than the 212-216 in the A321.

Please stop.


Interesting, good to know both companies use different seat pitch for their quoted capacities. Always wondered how Airbus was able to quote an A321 with more 1 class seating than a 757-200.


He conveniently ignored my reply from above - we have no idea what seat pitch Boeing is using.

My post from above reposted below.

"Here is a seat Map for a Rouge A321 with 200 seats in three class - albeit with 29" pitch in Y - but 34" in Y+ - and this is without the changes Airbus is making with it's SpaceFlex cabin which will add space.

https://seatguru.com/airlines/Air_Canad ... s_A321.php

Airbus says they can now get 244 seats into an A321 with Space Flex.

You have no idea what seat pitch Boeing is using on NMA."


Since Boeing uses 31 inch pitch for the 737 and 767. I'd assume they are using it for the 797. This seems pretty straight forward to me. The discussion is 1 class seating. Basically max capacity. Adding in airline customizations says nothing about the size of the plane imo. There are 787s out there that probably seat under 200 pax. How or why would that be used to compare to a 240 seat A321 using 28 inch pitch? Each company is using a different seat pitch standard when quoting 1 class capacity.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:15 am

Elementalism wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Elementalism wrote:

Interesting, good to know both companies use different seat pitch for their quoted capacities. Always wondered how Airbus was able to quote an A321 with more 1 class seating than a 757-200.


He conveniently ignored my reply from above - we have no idea what seat pitch Boeing is using.

My post from above reposted below.

"Here is a seat Map for a Rouge A321 with 200 seats in three class - albeit with 29" pitch in Y - but 34" in Y+ - and this is without the changes Airbus is making with it's SpaceFlex cabin which will add space.

https://seatguru.com/airlines/Air_Canad ... s_A321.php

Airbus says they can now get 244 seats into an A321 with Space Flex.

You have no idea what seat pitch Boeing is using on NMA."


Since Boeing uses 31 inch pitch for the 737 and 767. I'd assume they are using it for the 797. This seems pretty straight forward to me. The discussion is 1 class seating. Basically max capacity. Adding in airline customizations says nothing about the size of the plane imo. There are 787s out there that probably seat under 200 pax. How or why would that be used to compare to a 240 seat A321 using 28 inch pitch? Each company is using a different seat pitch standard when quoting 1 class capacity.


The discussion was in relation to how long the 797-6 and 797-7 were and RJMAZ inferring that it can't be 7W as it would be too long.

Boeing quotes the 737-10 as 188-204 2 Class https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max10/index.page

Supposedly the 797-6 is about 225 - that may be with same density as the 188 2 class 737-10 or 204 seat 737-10.

In a 7W 797 at the same cabin length you would pick up 16.7% Seats in Y and probably 50% more in the front.

Take Boeings midpoint of 737-10 of Capacity at 195 - 797-6 has supposedly 30 more at 225. Assume the 737-10 has four premium rows up front at 2x2 or 16 seats - leaving about 180 in the back or 30 rows. A 797-6 at the same length would have 24 plus 210 = 234 - so it could be shorter than the 737-10's 44M. It would need 2 rows less to be the same capacity - call it 2m less at 42m - but it could be closer to 44m as it might need a longer nose/tail.

Then you need 40 more seats for the 797-7 - add another row of Premium seats or 6 and lets say 5 rows of Y - call it 5m putting your 797 at 48-49M. Then maybe 52-53M for a potential 797-8. Not the 60M RJMAZ is pushing to get us to believe the 797 is 8W.

Who knows he might be right but other than Anet - there is no reference to 797 being 8W anywhere else.

I'll repeat again - Boeing uses Multiple standards - we don't know what they are using on the 797.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:27 am

Elementalism wrote:
Since Boeing uses 31 inch pitch for the 737 and 767. I'd assume they are using it for the 797. This seems pretty straight forward to me. The discussion is 1 class seating.

Very straight forward.

One could always be ridiculous and say that Boeing used a record 26inch seat pitch when determining the seat number of 225 in two class. That two class could could also have only a single row of business class. That would make the 797-6 smaller than both the A321 and 737-10 when the same economy seat size is used.

When a member tries to pull the argument away from an apple to apple comparison it usually means their argument is wrong. The 797 is much larger capacity than the A321.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:44 am

From the Scoot 321 thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1428053

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ ... y-and-grow

Our current fleet is made up of the A-320 which has between 180 and 186 seats, and the Boeing 787 which has between 329 and 375 seats. The new A-321neo with 236 seats each sits right in the middle


There you go, Airbus is taking the middle of the market in a big way. :stirthepot: ;)
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:16 am

oschkosch wrote:
From the Scoot 321 thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1428053

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ ... y-and-grow

Our current fleet is made up of the A-320 which has between 180 and 186 seats, and the Boeing 787 which has between 329 and 375 seats. The new A-321neo with 236 seats each sits right in the middle


There you go, Airbus is taking the middle of the market in a big way. :stirthepot: ;)


Certainly, the Middle Of Market exclude low-end products. This is worth in all areas of the market.

Imho :roll:
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:54 am

oschkosch wrote:
Our current fleet is made up of the A-320 which has between 180 and 186 seats, and the Boeing 787 which has between 329 and 375 seats. The new A-321neo with 236 seats each sits right in the middle


There you go, Airbus is taking the middle of the market in a big way. :stirthepot: ;)

Joking?

Firstly 236 seats is not half way between 180 and 329.

Secondly the scoot 787-8 329 seat cabin is two class. The 787-8 can actually sit around 360 seats in single class with better pitch than the A321.

The A321's 236 seats to the 787-8's 360 seats is more than a 50% increase. This is the MOM gap. The 797 sits in the middle.
 
hitower3
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:34 am

Dear a.netters,

There seems to be a heated debate about the proper assessment of seating capacity of airliners, mainly fueled by the fact that there isn't a unique way to configure seats on a plane.
May I kindly suggest that we should use the unit of cabin space in m² for our comparisons? This would eliminate the bias introduced by variable seat pitch and premium class configurations.

Best regards,
Hendric
 
astuteman
Posts: 6862
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:00 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Elementalism wrote:
Since Boeing uses 31 inch pitch for the 737 and 767. I'd assume they are using it for the 797. This seems pretty straight forward to me. The discussion is 1 class seating.

Very straight forward.

One could always be ridiculous and say that Boeing used a record 26inch seat pitch when determining the seat number of 225 in two class. That two class could could also have only a single row of business class. That would make the 797-6 smaller than both the A321 and 737-10 when the same economy seat size is used.

When a member tries to pull the argument away from an apple to apple comparison it usually means their argument is wrong. The 797 is much larger capacity than the A321.


You have routinely used deltas of 20% and 40% from the A321 for the 797-6 and 797-7 respectively.
I have no problem with that.
If you take the 2-class 185 seat configuration for the A321 in the ACAP and increase by 20% and 40%, you roughly get the 220 and 260 described for the 797-6 and 797-7.

The cabin for the 185 seat A321 consists of 16 x F seats in 4 rows at 36" pitch, and 169 x Y seats in 29 rows at a comfy 32" pitch - easily medium/long-haul configuration.

Adding 20% to the A321 numbers (for the 797-6) gives 20 x F and 203 x Y (223 total). At 7-abreast that would be 5 rows of F at 36" and the same 29 rows of Y at 32" - a total of 36" longer cabin than the A321 - a whole 1m in length. Add another 0.6m as the empennage is likely to be longer, and you end up with a plane that is at most 46.1m long. This plane would have a similar aspect ratio to the A321 if it was only 10cm deeper in cross section (4.24m vs 4.14m)...
And this is the version in the artists rendering. It is entirely consistent.

Adding 40% to the A321 numbers (for the 797-6) gives 24 x F and 237 x Y (261 total). At 7-abreast that would be 6 rows of F at 36" and 34 rows of Y at 32" - a total of 232" longer cabin than the A321, or about 6m This plane would indeed have a higher side aspect ratio than the A321, but not by much..
6m longer than the A321 makes 50.4m long. Add another 0.6m as the empennage is likely to be longer, and you end up with a plane that is at most 51m long - 3.7m longer than the 757-200, and 3.4m shorter than the 757-300, both of which have a fuselage only 4.01m high.

In terms of aspect ratio the above analysis suggests:-

A321, 44.5m long, 4.14m high, AR 10.75
767-6, 46.1m long, 4.24m high, AR 10.87 (much lower than the 757-200)
757-200, 47.3m long, 4.01m high, AR 11.79 (much higher than the 7-across 767-6)
767-7, 51m long, 4.24m high, AR 12.02 (almost the same as the 757-200)
757-300, 54.4m long, 4.01m high, AR 13.56

It can be clearly seen that even at 20% and 40% bigger than the A321 in genuine configurations,
a 7-abreast 797-6 would have a side aspect ration similar to the A321
a 7-abreast 797-7 would have a side aspect ratio similar to the 757-200

Time will tell us what the configuration ends up as (if it ever gets built), but the notion that 7-across results in a pencil that is inconsistent with an artists rendition (of all things) is frankly nonsense.

Rgds
 
User avatar
InsideMan
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:49 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:37 pm

hitower3 wrote:
Dear a.netters,

There seems to be a heated debate about the proper assessment of seating capacity of airliners, mainly fueled by the fact that there isn't a unique way to configure seats on a plane.
May I kindly suggest that we should use the unit of cabin space in m² for our comparisons? This would eliminate the bias introduced by variable seat pitch and premium class configurations.

Best regards,
Hendric


It's a great idea, until you compare single aisle to twin aisle.....
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:37 pm

astuteman wrote:
Time will tell us what the configuration ends up as (if it ever gets built), but the notion that 7-across results in a pencil that is inconsistent with an artists rendition (of all things) is frankly nonsense.

I agree with all of your numbers and agree if the 797-7 was the largest version to ever be made then 7ab makes sense. But you forgot the future 797-8 version which would be a certainty one engine PIP's come in a decade or so. This is the version that turns the 7ab 797 into a pencil and makes it structurally inefficient.

This puts it up above the 757-300.
 
hitower3
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:19 pm

InsideMan wrote:
hitower3 wrote:
Dear a.netters,

There seems to be a heated debate about the proper assessment of seating capacity of airliners, mainly fueled by the fact that there isn't a unique way to configure seats on a plane.
May I kindly suggest that we should use the unit of cabin space in m² for our comparisons? This would eliminate the bias introduced by variable seat pitch and premium class configurations.

Best regards,
Hendric


It's a great idea, until you compare single aisle to twin aisle.....


Well, OK I could agree with your point.
So, would it be a better idea to "normalize" the seating capacity on a theoretical 31" pitch all-Y configuration? In any case, I regretfully notice that we have lost quite a lot of time and nerves to battle around pax capacities of the various aeroplanes and variants in this discussion. Let's come over it!

Hendric
 
morrisond
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:21 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
astuteman wrote:
Time will tell us what the configuration ends up as (if it ever gets built), but the notion that 7-across results in a pencil that is inconsistent with an artists rendition (of all things) is frankly nonsense.

I agree with all of your numbers and agree if the 797-7 was the largest version to ever be made then 7ab makes sense. But you forgot the future 797-8 version which would be a certainty one engine PIP's come in a decade or so. This is the version that turns the 7ab 797 into a pencil and makes it structurally inefficient.

This puts it up above the 757-300.


No - you would probably end up with a plane (797-8) that was about 4.3m High (at Least) and about the same length as 757-300 - around 54-55M using Astuteman's or my numbers.

The 757-300 is 4.01M H by 54.4M L. The 797-8 would be less of a pencil and most probably built out of Carbon which could be stiffer making it less of an issue.
Last edited by morrisond on Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:27 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Elementalism wrote:
Since Boeing uses 31 inch pitch for the 737 and 767. I'd assume they are using it for the 797. This seems pretty straight forward to me. The discussion is 1 class seating.

Very straight forward.

One could always be ridiculous and say that Boeing used a record 26inch seat pitch when determining the seat number of 225 in two class. That two class could could also have only a single row of business class. That would make the 797-6 smaller than both the A321 and 737-10 when the same economy seat size is used.

When a member tries to pull the argument away from an apple to apple comparison it usually means their argument is wrong. The 797 is much larger capacity than the A321.


I assume by Member you mean me.

Is Boeing using the wrong seat pitches when they themselves quote the 737-10 2 class as 188-204? Or are they not allowed to redefine there own standards (if they have too to get those capacities)?

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max10/index.page

I have no doubt that eventually the 797 will grow into something maybe 40-50% larger - but the initial variants are probably (as no one knows for sure) a lot closer to 737/A321 size than 787 size.

Sorry for all the back and forth on size - if no one wants to read up - feel free to take the discussion in another direction - but there is nothing else to talk about until we have more information.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:05 pm

hitower3 wrote:
So, would it be a better idea to "normalize" the seating capacity on a theoretical 31" pitch all-Y configuration? In any case, I regretfully notice that we have lost quite a lot of time and nerves to battle around pax capacities of the various aeroplanes and variants in this discussion. Let's come over it!

Both vendors have "rules" they follow when they determine their seating capacity, but they are set by the vendors so they usually favor their products in some subtle ways, and they can and do change over time as airlines "densify" their cabins, so it's hard to find a common set of rules we can use, or a way we could apply vendor X's rules to vendor Y's cabin without raising an argument.

Any common set of 'rules' would inevitably get criticized for favoring one vendor over the other.

For instance would 'rules' allow the current 777 to be 10 across in Y? If they do they map on to the current practices of the majority of airlines, but don't map on to the practices a decade ago, so we could justify picking one set of rules that favor Boeing or a different set that disfavors 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
 
oschkosch
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:52 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
Our current fleet is made up of the A-320 which has between 180 and 186 seats, and the Boeing 787 which has between 329 and 375 seats. The new A-321neo with 236 seats each sits right in the middle


There you go, Airbus is taking the middle of the market in a big way. :stirthepot: ;)

Joking?

Firstly 236 seats is not half way between 180 and 329.

Secondly the scoot 787-8 329 seat cabin is two class. The 787-8 can actually sit around 360 seats in single class with better pitch than the A321.

The A321's 236 seats to the 787-8's 360 seats is more than a 50% increase. This is the MOM gap. The 797 sits in the middle.



Let me assist you, your calculator seems broken.
236 x 1,5 =354

:hyper: :ugeek:
 
DenverTed
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:41 pm

I'm sure Boeing have looked at 3-3, 2-2-2, 2-3-2, and 2-4-2. I believe the quote from them several years ago was that it was a light twin aisle but still deciding configuration.
Looking at lengths of 45m, 50m, and 55m, which seem reasonable baseline lengths, obviously the extra width leads to higher capacity except at the jump to twin aisle.
3-3 at 210, 240, 270
2-2-2 at 200, 230, 260
2-3-2 at 220, 255, 290
2-4-2 at 240, 280, 320

I hope Boeing goes with a twin aisle, and looking at the capacities, 2-3-2 is my bet, although I wouldn't dispute that 2-4-2 has better economics. The uncertainty with the long term future of the MAX 8 leans towards Keesje's wide single aisle. Only a single aisle can replace the 737-8, or shrink to a 150 seat aircraft.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:45 pm

oschkosch wrote:
[Let me assist you, your calculator seems broken.
236 x 1,5 =354

:hyper: :ugeek:

The 787-8 comfortably fits 359 in single class. So it is greater than 50% as I stated. My calculator works fine. You just need to fully read a post before posting.

Look at the scoot 787-8 seat map it is two class. The front three rows of 7ab get removed and replaced with five rows of 9ab. That brings the seating up to 359. Pretty simple.

The scoot 787-8 runs 31inch of pitch. What pitch does the A321 run to cram in 236 seats in? 28inch pitch.

If you used ran 28inch pitch instead of 31inch pitch on the 787-8 you would get three additional rows. Bringing it up to 386 seats. The 787-8 has an exit limit of 381 so put in an extra toilet. Now this would be the true apple to apple comparison with equal sized seats. 236 seat versus 381.

People always down play the size of the MOM gap. It is huge and it is not a niche. The 797 will dominate.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 31, 2019 2:19 am

DenverTed wrote:
Looking at lengths of 45m, 50m, and 55m, which seem reasonable baseline lengths, obviously the extra width leads to higher capacity except at the jump to twin aisle.
3-3 at 210, 240, 270
2-2-2 at 200, 230, 260
2-3-2 at 220, 255, 290
2-4-2 at 240, 280, 320

I agree with the two class seating values for all of those lengths.

We have 228 and 267 two class seat numbers for the 797. These are bigger than your 220 and 255 numbers for the 2-3-2. That will require 1m and 2m extra length to the 797-6 and 797-7 requiring 46m and 52m fuselage lengths. The future 797-8 would then be around 58m long.

Now this is the problem. 58m long and a 4.2m high fuselage would be skinnier than the 757-300.

Going to 2-4-2 and hitting the 228 and 267 two class values would require 43m and 48m lengths with the future 797-8 then being 53m long. With 4.5m fuselage height gives a nice 11.7 side aspect fineness ratio for the 797-8.

The obvious concern with 2-4-2 is the 797-6 would be too stubby at 4.5m height and 43m length gives a fineness ratio of 9.55. That is actually skinnier than an A320 which is has ratio of 9.08!

So even with 8ab the shortest 797-6 will be skinnier than an A320.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 31, 2019 5:16 am

Just that it will have an ovid fuselage. So it will be wider than the circle fuselage while having less height.

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