c933103 wrote:

Polot wrote:

WIederling wrote:

A proposed shorter A330-100 ( ~ A300 capacity ) would have been +6% more fuel efficient on typical A300 routes.

And yet Airbus couldn't get enough interest to launch the plane. Being 6% more fuel efficient than an older generation plane while having the structure for long range becomes less impressive if an optimized plane (with the same tech level as the long range shrink or whatever) is say 15-20% better than the older plane.

The difference in using A321s versus the proposed A331 for most missions killed the proposal. If you didn't need the range using A321s was far superior. If you needed the range A332/A333s were better. Boeing (and to a slightly lesser extent Airbus) are looking at ways to narrow the gap for larger than 737-10/A321 aircraft without having to resort exclusivity to range to build its business case.

Well, MoM is not exactly a short ranged plane.... However if a further shrink of 330 is to occur it would be like the third shrunk of the model...
I wonder if it is possible for them to reuse some components from A310.

Matt6461 wrote:

I found this quote particularly interesting:

Details are still few and far between, but Boeing has talked to 57 potential customers.

One such airline, Indian low-cost operator SpiceJet, said it was very interested in the new jet to relieve airport congestion and open new routes from South Asia.

“We have 1.3 billion people in our country, they need to travel to different parts of the world and they don’t necessarily need to travel through the hubs that have been created by several airlines on both sides of our country,” said SpiceJet CEO Ajay Singh.

http://www.wtma.com/news/world-gets-fir ... oeing-797/

If ULCC's think this works for them then those 4,000-plane projections start to look more realistic.

airmagnac wrote:

Love the "Baseline configuration study" slide...
"Look, everything is all new : the aerostructures, the systems, the engines and the production system.
And we're using awesome sounding words like "5th generation, hybrid, future system and 2nd Century" to make it sound cool without providing you any idea of what it actually means => so be excited ! we're giving you... (roll drums).... Crossover Economics !

...but we're still re-using 777/787 stuff 'cause it's "proven". So actually it's not all that new.... => don't get too worried, it'll work !

Ahhh, powerpoint slides...such an art
<insert any Dilbert strip with "powerpoint presentation" theme here>

At least the wikipedia figure representing product development phases gives a first hard date for EIS. Still 6-7 years of development time though

Amiga500 wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

I found this quote particularly interesting:

Details are still few and far between, but Boeing has talked to 57 potential customers.

One such airline, Indian low-cost operator SpiceJet, said it was very interested in the new jet to relieve airport congestion and open new routes from South Asia.

“We have 1.3 billion people in our country, they need to travel to different parts of the world and they don’t necessarily need to travel through the hubs that have been created by several airlines on both sides of our country,” said SpiceJet CEO Ajay Singh.

http://www.wtma.com/news/world-gets-fir ... oeing-797/

If ULCC's think this works for them then those 4,000-plane projections start to look more realistic.

Is that not somewhat contrary to the recent "market research" that indicated airlines were not after size, but rather range?

Which I guess, would highlight just how difficult it is to pin down exactly what the final aircraft need to do. I suppose a two model line, with the stretch sacrificing range is the most obvious way to go with it.

Matt6461 wrote:

SpiceJet - and other Indian carriers - would probably want this plane for range as much as size. Look at 4500nm from Indian airports:

...that opens up pretty much all of India to nearly all of Europe/Asia/Africa. Easily links secondary cities like MAA/CCU/BLR to capitals and links BOM/DEL with European secondaries. 8hr flights on a highly-efficient plane should be a good sweet spot for longhaul LCC ops.

Devilfish wrote:

'It is a geometry that enables single aisle economics and twin-aisle comfort,' says Delaney."

Amiga500 wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

'It is a geometry that enables single aisle economics and twin-aisle comfort,' says Delaney."

I'd love to see the maths behind that assertion!

kelvin933 wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

'It is a geometry that enables single aisle economics and twin-aisle comfort,' says Delaney."

I'd love to see the maths behind that assertion!

Delaney has discovered the ≈ symbol.
Single aisle economics ≈ NMA economics

Amiga500 wrote:

True, I guess its possible they could look to operate longhaul LCC.

How big would that market be?

United787 wrote:

Does this mean it is a two aisle aircraft?

The result is a hybrid cross-section for the fuselage, blending the passenger comfort of a twin-aisle on the main deck and the cargo compartment of a single-aisle below deck.

'It is a geometry that enables single aisle economics and twin-aisle comfort,' says Delaney.

United787 wrote:

I saw that and read the "comfort" as meaning it will feel like it is twin-aisle but won't really be... something about it seemed funny, maybe I am just being skeptical. So, can we assume this will be a 2-3-2? What else would it be? If that is the case, is this really a 763 replacement... since the 787 really never was????

QuarkFly wrote:

I can see why B is launching the 737 Max-10 now and taking firm orders. There is nothing else to show...This MoM or 797 is still in the Power-Point slides stage of development.

If you are still doing trade-studies on fuselage cross section, figuring out how to build the aircraft and making all three engine makers jump at your RFI's...you are a long way off from an aircraft launch. Talk to us when there is aircraft dimensions, weights, an engine and assembly location. Until then, the Max-10 landing gear is more interesting.

morrisond wrote:

It sounds something like a 170"H by 190"ish Wide Fuselage 2x3x2 with an LD3-45 or something slightly larger in the belly.

AirlineCritic wrote:

I am in the sceptics' camp as well regarding the meaning of the "the passenger comfort of a twin-aisle on the main deck" statement. It could mean anything. It might mean they squeezed 1in more width per seat. Or half... or it could mean that they have 2+3+2 config and two aisles.

This is quite ridiculous at this stage. The key issue is if you can make it have small fuel consumption, cheap to construct, and have more space than the A321s. I still consider it completely unproven that such a design exists, let alone be commercial feasible.

So it looks like I'm forced to wait more time to see what they will do in the end.

Amiga500 wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

'It is a geometry that enables single aisle economics and twin-aisle comfort,' says Delaney."

I'd love to see the maths behind that assertion!

QuarkFly wrote:

I can see why B is launching the 737 Max-10 now and taking firm orders. There is nothing else to show...This MoM or 797 is still in the Power-Point slides stage of development.

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

John Leahy and his surrogates at Airbus want to convince the market that a bigger narrowbody is the only way to go because he has constraints and wants to continue to sell the A320neo family. His statements so far seem more based in anecdotes and emotions than sound engineering judgement, but that is just my opinion. He is a salesman.

Yes, either anecdotes and emotions, or the fact he buried both the 757 and 767 with the A321 and A330 in this segment over the last 20 years..

Devilfish wrote:

According to study....."more range but not much more capacity".....

http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show- ... needed-nma

Quote:
"What airlines are asking Boeing and Airbus in the survey puts the OEMs in a difficult position: The vast majority of respondents (90%) want fewer than 250 seats in a two-class configuration and up to 5,000-nm range (76%). A significant percentage of respondents (24%) want even more than the 5,000 nm. Two-thirds of potential future operators also expect a composite fuselage and composite wings. In other words, they would like an aircraft that is not too different in size from today’s narrowbody families but has a lot more range."

The A321neo and its long-range (LR) version seem to have about the right size for most operators, and being too small is not as serious a problem as being too big. On the other hand, the survey shows that Airbus is not there yet, in particular as far as range is concerned. More work needs to be done on range, as the A321LR as currently proposed reaches only slightly over 4,000 nm. As part of the A321neo "plus-plus" project (part of a broader initiative to modernize the A320neo family), more capacity is under consideration, but more importantly, more range has to be designed into the aircraft.

astuteman wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

According to study....."more range but not much more capacity".....

http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show- ... needed-nma

Quote:
"What airlines are asking Boeing and Airbus in the survey puts the OEMs in a difficult position: The vast majority of respondents (90%) want fewer than 250 seats in a two-class configuration and up to 5,000-nm range (76%). A significant percentage of respondents (24%) want even more than the 5,000 nm. Two-thirds of potential future operators also expect a composite fuselage and composite wings. In other words, they would like an aircraft that is not too different in size from today’s narrowbody families but has a lot more range."

I linked this article myself earlier on, but re-reading it, I'm am once again struck by the implication that the 60/40 split in market opinion towards the Boeing MOM vs an A322NEO is driven by the range of the MOM proposal, not its capacity (although the clue IS in the title ).

The A321neo and its long-range (LR) version seem to have about the right size for most operators, and being too small is not as serious a problem as being too big. On the other hand, the survey shows that Airbus is not there yet, in particular as far as range is concerned. More work needs to be done on range, as the A321LR as currently proposed reaches only slightly over 4,000 nm. As part of the A321neo "plus-plus" project (part of a broader initiative to modernize the A320neo family), more capacity is under consideration, but more importantly, more range has to be designed into the aircraft.

The statement about the A321NEO having "about the right size for most operators" passed me by 1st time around.
So much for speed reading skills

Rgds

ssteve wrote:

So the above market opinion seems to match what 757s eventually became unique for... a bit bigger, but longer legs.

797, if that's what they call it, will be a beast of a freighter at this rate. They'll be delivering drywall in it, just because it can.

c933103 wrote:

https://www.google.com/patents/US20030062449
The content from this 2001 patent, titled "Twin aisle small airplane" seems to fit what Boeing is looking for rather well, except the patent is for <200 seats class. Interestingly the patent from 2001 also mentioned the term "Middle of the Market"

keesje wrote:

.. an advanced way to tell you're settling for the Airbus AKH containers you dismissed for 25 years..

keesje wrote:

.. an advanced way to tell you're settling for the Airbus AKH containers you dismissed for 25 years..

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

.. an advanced way to tell you're settling for the Airbus AKH containers you dismissed for 25 years..

Nice to see that you are alive. With all the order announcements at Paris, I would have expected you to be offering much more commentary.

I think cargo containers will be designed around what a 797 can carry and that the plane won't be designed around what cargo containers exist today. Airlines will probably have to add cost of new containers to their overall assessment when deciding where or not to buy a 797

JetBuddy wrote:

A twin-aisle with a narrowbody cargo compartment doesn't sound like a good freighter to me either.

But what I'm struggling to understand more, is what makes a 2-3-2 Y-configuration so much better than a 3-3 economically? I agree it would be better for the pax - more comfortable, more spacious, but the airlines' priority number 1 is economics. Adding just 1 row of seats at the expense of another aisle doesn't seem like that good of an idea. I realize there's advanced calculations involved in this, far beyond my capabilities. Could someone explain it in layman's terms?

JetBuddy wrote:

what makes a 2-3-2 Y-configuration so much better than a 3-3 economically? I agree it would be better for the pax - more comfortable, more spacious, but the airlines' priority number 1 is economics. Adding just 1 row of seats at the expense of another aisle doesn't seem like that good of an idea.

mjoelnir wrote:

Wide body, rather short, only one row of a few LD3-45 makes a beast of freighter?

JetBuddy wrote:

A twin-aisle with a narrowbody cargo compartment doesn't sound like a good freighter to me either.

But what I'm struggling to understand more, is what makes a 2-3-2 Y-configuration so much better than a 3-3 economically? I agree it would be better for the pax - more comfortable, more spacious, but the airlines' priority number 1 is economics. Adding just 1 row of seats at the expense of another aisle doesn't seem like that good of an idea. I realize there's advanced calculations involved in this, far beyond my capabilities. Could someone explain it in layman's terms?

leghorn wrote:

I'd guess the authorities would let it get away with fewer escape hatches too as ease of exit for 230 passengers will be so much better than for a current technology plane.

Finn350 wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

A twin-aisle with a narrowbody cargo compartment doesn't sound like a good freighter to me either.

But what I'm struggling to understand more, is what makes a 2-3-2 Y-configuration so much better than a 3-3 economically? I agree it would be better for the pax - more comfortable, more spacious, but the airlines' priority number 1 is economics. Adding just 1 row of seats at the expense of another aisle doesn't seem like that good of an idea. I realize there's advanced calculations involved in this, far beyond my capabilities. Could someone explain it in layman's terms?

It is the boarding and de-boarding time becoming excessive when you only have a single aisle and 220+ passengers.

leghorn wrote:

I'd guess the authorities would let it get away with fewer escape hatches too as ease of exit for 230 passengers will be so much better than for a current technology plane.

seahawk wrote:

Which does hardly matter for 7+ hour flights.

Finn350 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Which does hardly matter for 7+ hour flights.

It doesn't matter so much from the passenger point of view, but from the airport operations point of view it matters for how long a time a gate is needed, regardless length of the flight.