Arion640 wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Agreed, it's not going to open anything up. However I think it's going to be a perfect aircraft for anyone looking for a 767 replacement. I could even see BA taking a few.

The 787 is the 767 replacement. In BA's 3 class configuration the 788 only seats 25 more passengers than the the 763.

I was refrencing the short haul frames. The 788 is most airlines 767 replacement but it has a stupid amount of range, so 787's are getting a hammering on really short flights e.g Japenese domestic.

they're too much on east coast tatl 767 (and 757) replacements as well. 787 is best for tpac and west coast tatl. in addition to Japan domestic the 797 market for Asian medium haul thick routes (NRT PEK, PVG HKG, BKK DEL) is huge also

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

airbazar wrote:

The 787 is the 767 replacement. In BA's 3 class configuration the 788 only seats 25 more passengers than the the 763.

I was refrencing the short haul frames. The 788 is most airlines 767 replacement but it has a stupid amount of range, so 787's are getting a hammering on really short flights e.g Japenese domestic.

they're too much on east coast tatl 767 (and 757) replacements as well. 787 is best for tpac and west coast tatl. in addition to Japan domestic the 797 market for Asian medium haul thick routes (NRT PEK, PVG HKG, BKK DEL) is huge also

yes I agree. I expect JAL and Asiana airlines to try and snap some of these up pretty sharpish to fill this gap in the market that they could dominate.

Arion640 wrote:

Agreed, it's not going to open anything up. However I think it's going to be a perfect aircraft for anyone looking for a 767 replacement. I could even see BA taking a few.

If BA ever do take any, it certainly won't be as 767 replacements. That's because the last few 767s in the fleet will have left long before the first 797/MOM prototype takes to the skies. There are only 7 763s left in the BA mainline fleet, they're all shorthaul-configured, the A321neos that are already on order to replace them arrive during 2018, and the 763s will be gone by end 2018.

The actual market for planes often does not follow the trajectory that Airbus or Boeing intended. RJMAZ's fascinating speculation proposes 3 models. We could make the case that anyone of them could be the winner. Transatlantic plus, or up-gauging US domestic flights. US centric, but it may apply everywhere, or alternately different aviation networks might prefer different models. None of the three models is designed for cargo but that likely is not a minus.

so as we all know, united airlines are a huge advocate to Boeing aircraft manufacturing company and then, whilst researching the all new 797, which is still in the design stages, I stumble upon this news report. It seems like, as themotionman suggested, united airlines are already trying to make orders on the 797, even though it is still being designed. I expect they have already spotted the gap in the market the 797 family will allow them to fill and are trying to get first dibs on the new aircraft.
source:
"What we've seen so far is very, very interesting to us," Andrew Levy, United's chief financial officer, said in an interview. "We certainly hope Boeing launches the airoplane. We think there is a need for it."

An endorsement from United, a large Boeing customer, would go a long way toward making the business case for so-called middle-of-market jetliners. While the airoplane concept exists only on paper so far, Boeing has honed the design to seat between 225 and 260 passengers and worked to bring production costs in line with prices that airlines would be willing to pay.
"I wouldn't be surprised if there is a decision to offer by this year," John Plueger, chief executive officer and co-founder of Air Lease, said of the first step in Boeing's process to formally introduce a new plane. "That might be a bit early, a bit aggressive. But that would not surprise me."

Read more: http://www.traveller.com.au/boeing-797- ... z4vaqwaAhf

cheapgreek wrote:

HenryJudge wrote:

hello everyone, interested to hear your thoughts on what markets could receive transatlantic flights on the MOM on both sides of the pond. My initial thoughts are BRS, BIO, CMH and ALB.

I would think the same routes as the 767.

If it is like speculated I exactly agree with you. The speculated MOM would just replace 767 and 757, maybe some 330, too. There may be some new markets that are currently marginally uneconomic, but it depends so much on economic development on both sides of the pond, that it makes no sense so speculate seriously, only for fun.

A 320LR would open new markets, a speculated 321NG even more, but it is another story.

HenryJudge wrote:

so as we all know, united airlines are a huge advocate to Boeing aircraft manufacturing company and then, whilst researching the all new 797, which is still in the design stages, I stumble upon this news report. It seems like, as themotionman suggested, united airlines are already trying to make orders on the 797, even though it is still being designed. I expect they have already spotted the gap in the market the 797 family will allow them to fill and are trying to get first dibs on the new aircraft.
source:
"What we've seen so far is very, very interesting to us," Andrew Levy, United's chief financial officer, said in an interview. "We certainly hope Boeing launches the airoplane. We think there is a need for it."

An endorsement from United, a large Boeing customer, would go a long way toward making the business case for so-called middle-of-market jetliners. While the airoplane concept exists only on paper so far, Boeing has honed the design to seat between 225 and 260 passengers and worked to bring production costs in line with prices that airlines would be willing to pay.
"I wouldn't be surprised if there is a decision to offer by this year," John Plueger, chief executive officer and co-founder of Air Lease, said of the first step in Boeing's process to formally introduce a new plane. "That might be a bit early, a bit aggressive. But that would not surprise me."

Read more: http://www.traveller.com.au/boeing-797- ... z4vaqwaAhf

Pretty old news, a few airlines have shown interest publicly.

YIMBY wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

HenryJudge wrote:

hello everyone, interested to hear your thoughts on what markets could receive transatlantic flights on the MOM on both sides of the pond. My initial thoughts are BRS, BIO, CMH and ALB.

I would think the same routes as the 767.

If it is like speculated I exactly agree with you. The speculated MOM would just replace 767 and 757, maybe some 330, too. There may be some new markets that are currently marginally uneconomic, but it depends so much on economic development on both sides of the pond, that it makes no sense so speculate seriously, only for fun.

A 320LR would open new markets, a speculated 321NG even more, but it is another story.

Yes, a new 320LR and 321NG would certainly open up new markets, which would be excellent. Moving towards the 797 speculation, I agree that it will require a lot of economic development on each side, but there is no reason why it cant be achieved by the time the plane is supposed to be launched by (2025-2027 ish) but, I agree that it is very hard to predict the effects of an aircraft that is still in the design period that no-one knows much about at this stage.

Andy33 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Agreed, it's not going to open anything up. However I think it's going to be a perfect aircraft for anyone looking for a 767 replacement. I could even see BA taking a few.

If BA ever do take any, it certainly won't be as 767 replacements. That's because the last few 767s in the fleet will have left long before the first 797/MOM prototype takes to the skies. There are only 7 763s left in the BA mainline fleet, they're all shorthaul-configured, the A321neos that are already on order to replace them arrive during 2018, and the 763s will be gone by end 2018.

The problem being there is no exact replacement for the 767 so A321 neo is the closest they'll get. They like the 767 as it can shift plenty of cargo and can handle the busy flights like early morning Madrid. There is no 767/757 replacement and they don't want to spend capital on new 787's just to fly them to Larnaca full of holiday makers, so they have no choice but to replace them with A321 neo's. Cargo is half the reason the short haul 767's exist.

Arion640 wrote:

The problem being there is no exact replacement for the 767 so A321 neo is the closest they'll get. They like the 767 as it can shift plenty of cargo and can handle the busy flights like early morning Madrid. There is no 767/757 replacement and they don't want to spend capital on new 787's just to fly them to Larnaca full of holiday makers, so they have no choice but to replace them with A321 neo's. Cargo is half the reason the short haul 767's exist.

Oh yes, you're quite right. My point is simply that if the MOM/797 was due to enter commercial service in 2018, BA might have ordered some. As there doesn't seem to be a finalised design,let alone a flying prototype yet, BA has chosen the next best option and ordered A321neos because they can get them when they need them and not several years afterwards.

The situation with other remaining European 757/767 operators isn't that different, most really want to replace their remaining frames by about 2020 or sooner. MOM, even if it turns out to be the best plane ever, is simply too late arriving on the scene to figure in their fleet planning as a 757/767 replacement. Boeing will get their share of replacement orders, but in the form of 737Max and 787s, neither perhaps ideal for the missions they'll be used on but there when they're needed.

Btblue wrote:

Do you think it feasible that the MOM due to aerodynamic refinements be given a speed bump, similar to the Sonic Cruiser? An extra 100mph could offer a shorter trip time, greater aircraft utilisation against anything else on offer. A competitive advantage?

Hi there, yes I definitely think its feesable to increase the speed of the 797. I think this would add a great USP to the 797, making airlines much more inclined to buy the 797 to replace the 757's they may have in their fleet, aswell as to take advantage of the extended range it is said to have.

I know IB works only with airbus, but it seems the perfect plane to cover all Africa from its hub in MAD and secondary cities in USA (esat coast), Brazil or even the Caribbean

Kadish wrote:

I know IB works only with airbus, but it seems the perfect plane to cover all Africa from its hub in MAD and secondary cities in USA (esat coast), Brazil or even the Caribbean

yes I think so too because of the extended range and supposedly higher seat cont it will be economically viable for airlines to offer new flights to these destinations which will be hugely beneficial and convenient to passengers, as well as the airlines will be able to profit from these new routes.

Andy33 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Agreed, it's not going to open anything up. However I think it's going to be a perfect aircraft for anyone looking for a 767 replacement. I could even see BA taking a few.

If BA ever do take any, it certainly won't be as 767 replacements. That's because the last few 767s in the fleet will have left long before the first 797/MOM prototype takes to the skies. There are only 7 763s left in the BA mainline fleet, they're all shorthaul-configured, the A321neos that are already on order to replace them arrive during 2018, and the 763s will be gone by end 2018.

Yes, i think BA will have replaced them by then. maybe the 797 will be a replacement for the A321?

The 797 will arrive too late to replace the 752/763. It may be a useful tool for upgauging other routes. For example, moving a 797 to a shorter 787 route then putting that available 787 on a 'long and skinny' route. This will be THE game changer for long haul LCC.

My bets are on ZI ordering as well. They will give AF a run for their money on Paris to North and Central Africa with a steady flow of HNA cash.

Themotionman wrote:

The 797 will arrive too late to replace the 752/763. It may be a useful tool for upgauging other routes. For example, moving a 797 to a shorter 787 route then putting that available 787 on a 'long and skinny' route. This will be THE game changer for long haul LCC.

My bets are on ZI ordering as well. They will give AF a run for their money on Paris to North and Central Africa with a steady flow of HNA cash.

with eis predicted for 2025 it will hardly be too late, the big three can keep their 757/767 fleets another 8 years. the 330/787 is too much and the 321 too little market is there and will wait, too many carriers have spoken favorably about it

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

Themotionman wrote:

The 797 will arrive too late to replace the 752/763. It may be a useful tool for upgauging other routes. For example, moving a 797 to a shorter 787 route then putting that available 787 on a 'long and skinny' route. This will be THE game changer for long haul LCC.

My bets are on ZI ordering as well. They will give AF a run for their money on Paris to North and Central Africa with a steady flow of HNA cash.

with eis predicted for 2025 it will hardly be too late, the big three can keep their 757/767 fleets another 8 years. the 330/787 is too much and the 321 too little market is there and will wait, too many carriers have spoken favorably about it

Tell me how many 767s will still be in the air in 2025. Like you said, EIS is predicted in 2025. That's EIS for the first aircraft of the launch customer. Most airlines do not receive their first aircraft until a few years after that and it will be 3 or 4 years until their order are fulfilled. United's newest 767 was delivered in 2001 [Americans in 2003 and Delta's in 2001] and that would approaching 30 years old by the time United's [potential] order would finish. Remembering that UA have 35 763s to replace before their 2001built models are retired. The same goes for DL and AA. Remember the US3 are some of the only major airlines who will have 752s and 763s in the air in 2025.

Only a little off topic: I think the recent developments Airbus/Bombardier have greatly increased the probability that Boeing will/must develop the MOM. They simply have too few 'best in market' models. The MOM could become a Best in Market, and if good enough a large niche. Dealing with the C series is important and secondary.

Themotionman wrote:

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

Themotionman wrote:

The 797 will arrive too late to replace the 752/763. It may be a useful tool for upgauging other routes. For example, moving a 797 to a shorter 787 route then putting that available 787 on a 'long and skinny' route. This will be THE game changer for long haul LCC.

My bets are on ZI ordering as well. They will give AF a run for their money on Paris to North and Central Africa with a steady flow of HNA cash.

with eis predicted for 2025 it will hardly be too late, the big three can keep their 757/767 fleets another 8 years. the 330/787 is too much and the 321 too little market is there and will wait, too many carriers have spoken favorably about it

Tell me how many 767s will still be in the air in 2025. Like you said, EIS is predicted in 2025. That's EIS for the first aircraft of the launch customer. Most airlines do not receive their first aircraft until a few years after that and it will be 3 or 4 years until their order are fulfilled. United's newest 767 was delivered in 2001 [Americans in 2003 and Delta's in 2001] and that would approaching 30 years old by the time United's [potential] order would finish. Remembering that UA have 35 763s to replace before their 2001built models are retired. The same goes for DL and AA. Remember the US3 are some of the only major airlines who will have 752s and 763s in the air in 2025.

if NW could do it with their DC9 fleet, the big 3 can do it with their 757/767s. The upside to waiting a few more years for the 797 will be well worth it there is nothing viable to replace them from airbus, 321 too little, 330 too much.

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

Themotionman wrote:

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

with eis predicted for 2025 it will hardly be too late, the big three can keep their 757/767 fleets another 8 years. the 330/787 is too much and the 321 too little market is there and will wait, too many carriers have spoken favorably about it

Tell me how many 767s will still be in the air in 2025. Like you said, EIS is predicted in 2025. That's EIS for the first aircraft of the launch customer. Most airlines do not receive their first aircraft until a few years after that and it will be 3 or 4 years until their order are fulfilled. United's newest 767 was delivered in 2001 [Americans in 2003 and Delta's in 2001] and that would approaching 30 years old by the time United's [potential] order would finish. Remembering that UA have 35 763s to replace before their 2001built models are retired. The same goes for DL and AA. Remember the US3 are some of the only major airlines who will have 752s and 763s in the air in 2025.

if NW could do it with their DC9 fleet, the big 3 can do it with their 757/767s. The upside to waiting a few more years for the 797 will be well worth it there is nothing viable to replace them from airbus, 321 too little, 330 too much.

The difference was that NW were a mess and couldn't replace their DC9s. They sure wanted to replace them but they didn't have the cash.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Only a little off topic: I think the recent developments Airbus/Bombardier have greatly increased the probability that Boeing will/must develop the MOM. They simply have too few 'best in market' models. The MOM could become a Best in Market, and if good enough a large niche. Dealing with the C series is important and secondary.

Yes, I agree with you. being will lose a great deal of market share if they don't develop a MOM because airlines will simply go for the best plane in their budget and if this is not a Boeing plane, then this will cost the as it costs hundreds of millions to produce. if they get a few backed up because no one is buying them, they will have 600 million is stocks just sitting there which could be detrimental.

hello, everyone i found this info on the web today and though it may be of interest in terms of what the new 797 could possibly look like.

developing latest technology, including possibly:
A 'double-bubble' D8 (twin aisle) configuration,
Open rotors or Ultra-high bypass ratio turbofans,
Advanced shaped wings with laminar flow control,
Shape Memory Alloys (SMAs) embedded in CFRPs, Graphene?,
Green (low emissions, low noise) technologies,
Hybrid-electric powerplants? Let us not forget the electric revolution and
Last but not least, incremental use of digitalisation for more connected aircraft

source:
http://gustiewing.blogspot.co.uk/2017/0 ... aunch.html

RJMAZ wrote:

Assuming a 3 length family the shortest model would have range 25+% greater than the A321LR and the 757. This would open up every east coast city of the US with middle Europe.

The two longer models won't open up any new routes. They will be to upsize existing narrowbody routes at congested airports. The 797-10 would have the best CASM on short routes.

The three lengths in the image match the A310, A300 and A330-200. With a fuselage approximately 19inchs narrower than the 9 abreast 787. That's one less seat and an inch off each aisle.

Looks almost exactly like the 787. I'm sorry but I don't see any real difference.....

bmacleod wrote:

Looks almost exactly like the 787. I'm sorry but I don't see any real difference.....

Most aircraft look the same. Tube with wings.

Let's compare the middle two members

787-9 vs 797-9
Empty weight: 128T vs 80T = 63%
Fuselage length: 62m vs 52m = 83%
Fuselage height: 6m vs 4.5m = 75%
Max takeoff: 254T vs 150T = 60%
Fuel capacity: 126,000L vs 60,000L = 47%
Wingspan: 60m vs 44m = 73%

Average percentage 66.6%

So two thirds is definitely a huge difference.

That is the same difference between a 777 and A380.

If you think my numbers are unrealistically low for my 797 models look up the specs of the A300 on wikipedia. The reason why the 787 and A330 weigh so much is because of their huge fuel capacity. Half the fuel capacity and the weights drop below 75%

bmacleod wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Assuming a 3 length family the shortest model would have range 25+% greater than the A321LR and the 757. This would open up every east coast city of the US with middle Europe.

The two longer models won't open up any new routes. They will be to upsize existing narrowbody routes at congested airports. The 797-10 would have the best CASM on short routes.

The three lengths in the image match the A310, A300 and A330-200. With a fuselage approximately 19inchs narrower than the 9 abreast 787. That's one less seat and an inch off each aisle.

Looks almost exactly like the 787. I'm sorry but I don't see any real difference.....

You realize those pictures are just placeholder aircraft and he is using the 787 in those pictures...

RJMAZ wrote:

bmacleod wrote:

Looks almost exactly like the 787. I'm sorry but I don't see any real difference.....

Most aircraft look the same. Tube with wings.

Let's compare the middle two members

787-9 vs 797-9
Empty weight: 128T vs 80T = 63%
Fuselage length: 62m vs 52m = 83%
Fuselage height: 6m vs 4.5m = 75%
Max takeoff: 254T vs 150T = 60%
Fuel capacity: 126,000L vs 60,000L = 47%
Wingspan: 60m vs 44m = 73%

Average percentage 66.6%

So two thirds is definitely a huge difference.

That is the same difference between a 777 and A380.

If you think my numbers are unrealistically low for my 797 models look up the specs of the A300 on wikipedia. The reason why the 787 and A330 weigh so much is because of their huge fuel capacity. Half the fuel capacity and the weights drop below 75%

all of this is why i recon the 797 will be a market changing airclraft and will almost pioneer the future of air travel.

th

HenryJudge wrote:

yes I agree. I expect JAL and Asiana airlines to try and snap some of these up pretty sharpish to fill this gap in the market that they could dominate.

I don't know about Asiana. They're pretty much switching entirely over to RR/Airbus, and they're the only airline to have the A350-800 on order. I'm not sure they'd complicate things again by buying from Boeing. I'd expect them to pick up more A330s before they go for these.

albert648 wrote:

HenryJudge wrote:

yes I agree. I expect JAL and Asiana airlines to try and snap some of these up pretty sharpish to fill this gap in the market that they could dominate.

I don't know about Asiana. They're pretty much switching entirely over to RR/Airbus, and they're the only airline to have the A350-800 on order. I'm not sure they'd complicate things again by buying from Boeing. I'd expect them to pick up more A330s before they go for these.

yeah, I suppose they could do but, if the 797 is as influential as it is supposed to be, they may order some rather than more a330s if they arrive in time that is.

HenryJudge wrote:

albert648 wrote:

HenryJudge wrote:

yes I agree. I expect JAL and Asiana airlines to try and snap some of these up pretty sharpish to fill this gap in the market that they could dominate.

I don't know about Asiana. They're pretty much switching entirely over to RR/Airbus, and they're the only airline to have the A350-800 on order. I'm not sure they'd complicate things again by buying from Boeing. I'd expect them to pick up more A330s before they go for these.

yeah, I suppose they could do but, if the 797 is as influential as it is supposed to be, they may order some rather than more a330s if they arrive in time that is.

Doesn't really help that Asiana's 767s are ancient and held up with duct tape, and need to be replaced yesterday. Unfortunately between losing the 777 at SFO, their A350 deliveries, and various LCCs jumping in on their bread and butter routes, they don't seem to have the money to replace it with anything.

albert648 wrote:

HenryJudge wrote:

albert648 wrote:

I don't know about Asiana. They're pretty much switching entirely over to RR/Airbus, and they're the only airline to have the A350-800 on order. I'm not sure they'd complicate things again by buying from Boeing. I'd expect them to pick up more A330s before they go for these.

yeah, I suppose they could do but, if the 797 is as influential as it is supposed to be, they may order some rather than more a330s if they arrive in time that is.

Doesn't really help that Asiana's 767s are ancient and held up with duct tape, and need to be replaced yesterday. Unfortunately between losing the 777 at SFO, their A350 deliveries, and various LCCs jumping in on their bread and butter routes, they don't seem to have the money to replace it with anything.

Very true. the LCC's are really causing them a problem. they may have to think about there strategy and possibly regain some of the market share by offering cheaper fares.

tlecam wrote:

If an AvGeek can’t imagine and hypothesize and wonder on a.net, where can he or she? There’s a lot of wet hens in here.

Here are my guesses (sorry for not having confirmed sources with the heads of route planning at all carriers)

- replace 763/757 tatl and South America
- US hubs to Secondary Europe - for example, the up and coming former communist Eastern European cities like Prague, Budapest.
- European hubs to Secondary US cities and more flights to hubs with a smaller TATL presence today. Perhaps CMH gets a flight to Europe. BA has already been doing this and other airlines may get in the game - Paris, AMS, FRA etc...
- South American expansion.

Love this guy. some people on here have their head so far up their own &$$ its coming back up

danj555 wrote:

tlecam wrote:

If an AvGeek can’t imagine and hypothesize and wonder on a.net, where can he or she? There’s a lot of wet hens in here.

Here are my guesses (sorry for not having confirmed sources with the heads of route planning at all carriers)

- replace 763/757 tatl and South America
- US hubs to Secondary Europe - for example, the up and coming former communist Eastern European cities like Prague, Budapest.
- European hubs to Secondary US cities and more flights to hubs with a smaller TATL presence today. Perhaps CMH gets a flight to Europe. BA has already been doing this and other airlines may get in the game - Paris, AMS, FRA etc...
- South American expansion.

Love this guy. some people on here have their head so far up their own &$$ its coming back up

this whole thread is opinion based and not based on true facts. that's why I don't think you should get wound up about people having different opinions on the plane to your opinion because at the end of the day, no-one knows anything really about this aircraft, not even the designers yet!

RJMAZ wrote:

bmacleod wrote:

Looks almost exactly like the 787. I'm sorry but I don't see any real difference.....

Most aircraft look the same. Tube with wings.

Let's compare the middle two members

787-9 vs 797-9
Empty weight: 128T vs 80T = 63%
Fuselage length: 62m vs 52m = 83%
Fuselage height: 6m vs 4.5m = 75%
Max takeoff: 254T vs 150T = 60%
Fuel capacity: 126,000L vs 60,000L = 47%
Wingspan: 60m vs 44m = 73%

Average percentage 66.6%

So two thirds is definitely a huge difference.

That is the same difference between a 777 and A380.

If you think my numbers are unrealistically low for my 797 models look up the specs of the A300 on wikipedia. The reason why the 787 and A330 weigh so much is because of their huge fuel capacity. Half the fuel capacity and the weights drop below 75%

The weight issue for the 300 vs 330 isn't just fuel capacity. It's a ~33% larger wingspan, 4m longer fuselage, etc. Yes, they most likely beefed up the rest of the plane to handle the higher weights for more fuel, but it's not the only reason.

The biggest issue is the wingspan of your 797. Boeing did tests on the 787 and found that the shorter wingspan on the -3 would have hurt performance, even on regional flights. While it doesn't make sense to have a 60m span on a regional plane, maybe somewhere in between, like 48m with winglets could help close the gap,

Of course, it'd probably be significantly cheaper to rework the 787-3 and cut structural weight allowing for a 4000mn plane rather than a clean sheet design.

caverunner17 wrote:

The weight issue for the 300 vs 330 isn't just fuel capacity. It's a ~33% larger wingspan, 4m longer fuselage, etc. Yes, they most likely beefed up the rest of the plane to handle the higher weights for more fuel, but it's not the only reason.

It is 95% the reason. The 4m stretch would add 5-6% to the empty weight. Yet it weighs a massive 50% more!

The fuselage is extremely light. You can see the tiny percentage of increased weight with multiple families. Look up the A318 to A320. The A330-200 to 300 and the 767-200 to 300. Tiny weight increase from the stretch.

That huge wing is to lift all that fuel. Also a few extra staff and food for the long flight.

caverunner17 wrote:

The biggest issue is the wingspan of your 797. Boeing did tests on the 787 and found that the shorter wingspan on the -3 would have hurt performance, even on regional flights.

This was because the wing of the 787-3 was no longer a perfect shape. It was clipped and had no winglets. The wing itself and the wingbox was thick and heavy even though the max takeoff was significantly reduced. That's pure dead weight.

If the 787-3 had a wing that was a perfect 80% scaled down wing it would have had far better performance on regional flights. The 787-3 was originally planned to be optimised but the whole 787 program was being schedule and over budget. The 787-3 was then changed to a cheap and nasty non optimised version which proved not to work.

caverunner17 wrote:

Of course, it'd probably be significantly cheaper to rework the 787-3 and cut structural weight allowing for a 4000mn plane rather than a clean sheet design.

It would indeed be cheaper. It would also explain the increased 787 production rate. I have mentioned this a few times in other threads. The 787-8 has run out of orders so it could be relaunched. Its carbon fibre parts are laid up by a robot layer by layer. It is easy to reduce layers in low load areas.

Dropping the max takeoff weight of the 787-8 from 227T to say 180T would reduce the loads on many parts. The parts can then be optimised lighter. Less layers, slightly thinner bulkheads, lighter gear legs etc, or if Boeing wants to hit it out of the park putting a brand new lighter engine on it. This would be much better than derating the normal engine to 80% thrust.

The 787-3 had none of this optimisation. Once optimised empty weight would easily be reduced by 10-15T which reduces fuel burn across the entire flight. This would reduce the range hit. Even though it would carry 65-70% as much fuel as the current 787-8 it could probably still fly 75-80% as far.

RJMAZ wrote:

Assuming a 3 length family the shortest model would have range 25+% greater than the A321LR and the 757. This would open up every east coast city of the US with middle Europe.

The two longer models won't open up any new routes. They will be to upsize existing narrowbody routes at congested airports. The 797-10 would have the best CASM on short routes.

The three lengths in the image match the A310, A300 and A330-200. With a fuselage approximately 19inchs narrower than the 9 abreast 787. That's one less seat and an inch off each aisle.

I like your design. Boeing has been evaluating an elliptical cross-section with a horizontal long axis, which is similar to your design but involves less crown space over the passenger deck. The floor would be in compression in such a design, but the advent of stiffer (per unit mass) composites seems to have made such a design feasible. Consider this image from a Boeing patent (note the actual aircraft would be not so short and stubby, but the patent pertains to the cross-section, not the length):



One of the advantages of a narrowbody is that the seat:aisle ratio is 6:1. No widebody achieves such a ratio, not even an 11-abreast A380 at 5.5:1. The delay in embarcation/disembarcation caused by aisle congestion is a disadvantage that gets more important as the narrowbody gets longer, a disadvantage ameloriated by having two aisles. But an elliptical fuselage can help to reduce the overall amount of fuselage cross sectional area required to seat 7 or 8-abreast, if the structural issues can be solved.

As for your specific models, I'd say that a 3,600nmi model with 260 passengers may be just a leeeeetle short-ranged for its size. It might have a niche market as an Asian regional type, but with some beefing up of the engines and structure, it should be possible to push it up to something like ~4,000nmi, which would broaden its market appeal for transatlantic, South American, and US-HI routes.

As for your specific models, I'd say that a 3,600nmi model with 260 passengers may be just a leeeeetle short-ranged for its size. It might have a niche market as an Asian regional type, but with some beefing up of the engines and structure, it should be possible to push it up to something like ~4,000nmi, which would broaden its market appeal for transatlantic, South American, and US-HI routes.[/quote]

the 797 rumours coming from the designers say it will have a much larger range over the 757 - possibly up to 5,200nmi which, as you say will greatly appeal to the markets you mentioned. this will only be a heavily sought after aircraft though, if it arrives in time to beat the airbuses new developments but many airlines have already shown a big interest in the 797, mostly because of the huge range upgrade it has over the other similar aircrafts in the market.

in the link attached below there is an image of the new 797 and some further info you may be interested in.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/20/news/co ... index.html

why is the 797-8 supposed to have the largest fuel capacity of the 797 family? surely the bigger the plane, the more fuel it can have to an extent obviously otherwise it would be too heavy to fly.

united airlines seem to be excited about the 797!
United Continental has taken a close look at an all-new jetliner that Boeing engineers are developing for trans-Atlantic flying, and the airline likes what it sees.

"What we've seen so far is very, very interesting to us," Andrew Levy, United's chief financial officer, said in an interview. "We certainly hope Boeing launches the airplane. We think there is a need for it."

source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/9038 ... ontinental

HenryJudge wrote:

why is the 797-8 supposed to have the largest fuel capacity of the 797 family? surely the bigger the plane, the more fuel it can have to an extent obviously otherwise it would be too heavy to fly.

This would happen when all versions have the same maximum takeoff weight and internal structure. The shortest member would then be lighter allowing room for more payload or fuel.

The longer members are exchanging fuel load for a longer cabin and more passengers. This is how my design was done. All three had the same fuel capacity but the only he shortest member would actually takeoff with full fuel load with a decent payload. The -9 and -10 would require 80% and 60% fuel loads with max passenger payload.

So the fuel loads may just be reduced on paper. Or the shortest version can be overfilled slightly like the A350-900ULR. Or the shortest member has a fuselage fuel tank as it can carry the extra weight.

RJMAZ wrote:

HenryJudge wrote:

why is the 797-8 supposed to have the largest fuel capacity of the 797 family? surely the bigger the plane, the more fuel it can have to an extent obviously otherwise it would be too heavy to fly.

This would happen when all versions have the same maximum takeoff weight and internal structure. The shortest member would then be lighter allowing room for more payload or fuel.

The longer members are exchanging fuel load for a longer cabin and more passengers. This is how my design was done. All three had the same fuel capacity but the only he shortest member would actually takeoff with full fuel load with a decent payload. The -9 and -10 would require 80% and 60% fuel loads with max passenger payload.

So the fuel loads may just be reduced on paper. Or the shortest version can be overfilled slightly like the A350-900ULR. Or the shortest member has a fuselage fuel tank as it can carry the extra weight.

Ah ok, thanks for clearing that up.

Thx for the link HenryJudge.
From what UH is saying (and is has been reported before-'the plus').The short term response from Airbus will be to squeeze an additional 2-3% out of the wing.I believe I read that the P&W engines also get another PIP in 2019 (2%).We also know they have built (and one therefore assumes is being tested on their iron bird) a monolithic carbon wing box centre section.
I can see the present aircraft getting to 4,500 nm (still air).
Ok it's a 206 seater (2 class) not a 250 seater but it will cover a good slug of the MOM market for a very low additional investment.But in many ways that should not be a deterrent to Boeing.If there is a real and growing long term market then they have to fill it some day.

parapente wrote:

Thx for the link HenryJudge.
From what UH is saying (and is has been reported before-'the plus').The short term response from Airbus will be to squeeze an additional 2-3% out of the wing.I believe I read that the P&W engines also get another PIP in 2019 (2%).We also know they have built (and one therefore assumes is being tested on their iron bird) a monolithic carbon wing box centre section.
I can see the present aircraft getting to 4,500 nm (still air).
Ok it's a 206 seater (2 class) not a 250 seater but it will cover a good slug of the MOM market for a very low additional investment.But in many ways that should not be a deterrent to Boeing.If there is a real and growing long term market then they have to fill it some day.

Yes I agree, they should definitely look into this market as they could dominate it early and really increase their global reach.

So basically none of the responses on this thread have answered the actual question given by HenryJudge in the first place. There is a whole different thread for general 797 discussion.

My bets are:
AA- PHL-BIO
DL- AMS-JAX
DL- AMS-MEM
DL- AMS-GRR
DL- ATL-ROB
DL- DTW-MAN
DL- JFK-VIE
BA- LHR-ORF
UA- EWR-SVG
UA- EWR-TRD

Btblue wrote:

Do you think it feasible that the MOM due to aerodynamic refinements be given a speed bump, similar to the Sonic Cruiser? An extra 100mph could offer a shorter trip time, greater aircraft utilisation against anything else on offer. A competitive advantage?

i would say i could well be, yes. the only thing that could restrict a speed bum would be Fuel consumption because this would reduce the range of the aircraft but for short flights,this would be ideal.

Themotionman wrote:

So basically none of the responses on this thread have answered the actual question given by HenryJudge in the first place. There is a whole different thread for general 797 discussion.

My bets are:
AA- PHL-BIO
DL- AMS-JAX
DL- AMS-MEM
DL- AMS-GRR
DL- ATL-ROB
DL- DTW-MAN
DL- JFK-VIE
BA- LHR-ORF
UA- EWR-SVG
UA- EWR-TRD

DL-AMS/MEM? That would be nice but will not happen at all. If BA got this plane and went to the next set of cities, maybe MEM/LGW. The reason I say this is that MEMPHIS is pretty well connected to all AA hubs outside of Los Angeles and for TATL that is not important at all. That could help a lot in open jaw bookings via code share. Music tourism folks wouldn'd have to back track much either. They do a week (4 days in Nashville/3 in Memphis) without any connecting on this side of the pond. Lots of combinations for music triangle vacations, especially if you mix in 7 day say riverboat cruises on the Mississippi for trips of 2 weeks or more in length.

http://americanamusictriangle.com

Otherwise, it'll be an LCC like Norwegian to help service the Europeans that visit Memphis every year and stimulate local demand, and they'll plop them down in New Orleans, Nashville, St. Louis, and Memphis.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Themotionman wrote:

So basically none of the responses on this thread have answered the actual question given by HenryJudge in the first place. There is a whole different thread for general 797 discussion.

My bets are:
AA- PHL-BIO
DL- AMS-JAX
DL- AMS-MEM
DL- AMS-GRR
DL- ATL-ROB
DL- DTW-MAN
DL- JFK-VIE
BA- LHR-ORF
UA- EWR-SVG
UA- EWR-TRD

DL-AMS/MEM? That would be nice but will not happen at all. If BA got this plane and went to the next set of cities, maybe MEM/LGW. The reason I say this is that MEMPHIS is pretty well connected to all AA hubs outside of Los Angeles and for TATL that is not important at all. That could help a lot in open jaw bookings via code share. Music tourism folks wouldn'd have to back track much either. They do a week (4 days in Nashville/3 in Memphis) without any connecting on this side of the pond. Lots of combinations for music triangle vacations, especially if you mix in 7 day say riverboat cruises on the Mississippi for trips of 2 weeks or more in length.

http://americanamusictriangle.com

Otherwise, it'll be an LCC like Norwegian to help service the Europeans that visit Memphis every year and stimulate local demand, and they'll plop them down in New Orleans, Nashville, St. Louis, and Memphis.

Memphis has a large DL ff community which could support an AMS route. Expect BA/AA to go to STL-LHR before MEM. A flight to LGW would not help at all becuase the BNA flight goes from LHR. What tourists fly out of one airport and then arrive back in a different one. Bit of a pain when it comes to parking your car!

Themotionman wrote:

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Themotionman wrote:

So basically none of the responses on this thread have answered the actual question given by HenryJudge in the first place. There is a whole different thread for general 797 discussion.

My bets are:
AA- PHL-BIO
DL- AMS-JAX
DL- AMS-MEM
DL- AMS-GRR
DL- ATL-ROB
DL- DTW-MAN
DL- JFK-VIE
BA- LHR-ORF
UA- EWR-SVG
UA- EWR-TRD

DL-AMS/MEM? That would be nice but will not happen at all. If BA got this plane and went to the next set of cities, maybe MEM/LGW. The reason I say this is that MEMPHIS is pretty well connected to all AA hubs outside of Los Angeles and for TATL that is not important at all. That could help a lot in open jaw bookings via code share. Music tourism folks wouldn'd have to back track much either. They do a week (4 days in Nashville/3 in Memphis) without any connecting on this side of the pond. Lots of combinations for music triangle vacations, especially if you mix in 7 day say riverboat cruises on the Mississippi for trips of 2 weeks or more in length.

http://americanamusictriangle.com

Otherwise, it'll be an LCC like Norwegian to help service the Europeans that visit Memphis every year and stimulate local demand, and they'll plop them down in New Orleans, Nashville, St. Louis, and Memphis.

Memphis has a large DL ff community which could support an AMS route. Expect BA/AA to go to STL-LHR before MEM. A flight to LGW would not help at all becuase the BNA flight goes from LHR. What tourists fly out of one airport and then arrive back in a different one. Bit of a pain when it comes to parking your car!

I agree with STL first, there's no doubt on that.

A BA 788 has like what, 214 seats? At 31, 25 and 158 in three classes? How many would a BA B797 seat and what configuration? Are we talking about a plane with 175 seats for them? This would be similar to Delta would it not. Norwegian I suspect would stick 240 to 250 in them depending on if they use their premium seats in it. They seem to be leaving those out of the A321LRs as it's a single aisle. Kjos has dropped Memphis out there several times several I little doubt that once the right plane comes along he'll give it a go. His 788's are too much plane for MEM. The A321s may be able to pull off Ireland and Scotland flights and with improvements, Gatwick. The international tourism market for Memphis is one way at the moment and that's coming to visit and not folks going. Now, there's potential there but it has to be stimulated. I have good friends whose kids have taking high school trips to France and several other places thru their districts in Eastern Arkansas. My first trip to France was via a school trip through my French class, the German and Spanish classes offered trips as well.

Anyhoo, I get that old Delta FF connection but it's slowly fading away My Brother has started flying Southwest for most leasure trips and his company is putting them on Southwest for business. Price wins out these days especially when trip time is close when there's no non stop option.

A side note, looking at the total passenger numbers for Sept. The Air Canada flight on an Air Goergian 50 seater was around 84% full, i t was in the 90s for the summer months, wonder how much more drop off there might be as we head to winter.

Themotionman wrote:

So basically none of the responses on this thread have answered the actual question given by HenryJudge in the first place. There is a whole different thread for general 797 discussion.

My bets are:
AA- PHL-BIO
DL- AMS-JAX
DL- AMS-MEM
DL- AMS-GRR
DL- ATL-ROB
DL- DTW-MAN
DL- JFK-VIE
BA- LHR-ORF
UA- EWR-SVG
UA- EWR-TRD

Yes, AMS-GRR is a definitely a good route for this, and one most would not initially think of. But a few others, off the top of my head.....
AA- PHL-IBZ
DL- JFK-EIN
UA- EWR-MRS
SK- ARN-BNA
EI- ORK-BOS
BA- MAN-AUS
SU- LED-IAD

Freshside3 wrote:

Themotionman wrote:

So basically none of the responses on this thread have answered the actual question given by HenryJudge in the first place. There is a whole different thread for general 797 discussion.

My bets are:
AA- PHL-BIO
DL- AMS-JAX
DL- AMS-MEM
DL- AMS-GRR
DL- ATL-ROB
DL- DTW-MAN
DL- JFK-VIE
BA- LHR-ORF
UA- EWR-SVG
UA- EWR-TRD

Yes, AMS-GRR is a definitely a good route for this, and one most would not initially think of. But a few others, off the top of my head.....
AA- PHL-IBZ
DL- JFK-EIN
UA- EWR-MRS
SK- ARN-BNA
EI- ORK-BOS
BA- MAN-AUS
SU- LED-IAD

Yes, some other I thought of were:

SAV, BUF, TYS, SYR, on either DL to AMS/CDG or BA/AA to LHR