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.

What's the practical range, what's the seat count, and what's the CASM improvement vs. a 757-200?

Although occasionally (and mistakenly) belittled on this forum, a globe and a string are great for coming up with a 'first cut' . Add in that west bound is harder than east bound.

There were numerous outraged persons on this forum tantruming that that a 757 had to occasionally make a tech stop coming west. And of course now the complaint is that there is no real replacement. There likely are metrics as to how many tech stops for fuel are tolerated on a route both for passenger convenience and for expense.

We know very little at the moment about the economics of the 797. Aviation week reports a seat count of about 220-270 with a range of about 5200nmi.

I'll play, the recent ANNA Aero chart that was posted on several threads offer some insight.

I'm Memphis-centric so naturally I say Memphis to to a couple of European cities on a seasonal basis.

Why? Last year Memphis saw over 2 million international tourist, their average length of stay was 3 to 4 nights. The obvious drae is the Music Heritage and BBQ angle. The top producing international markets were Canada, UK, Australia, Japan, Germany, France and Benelux in that order

So, Norweigian via a combo of London and Amsterdam(when it's up and going) at 2/3x Spring to Fall on a 797. Possibly Paris. Not enough numbers to support Oslo, Copenhagen, Rome or Barcelona.

Condor or Eurowings for the German market if they bought 797s or the Airbus answer to it.

Memphis/Tokyo is a no go at 5800nm and obvious issues with slots for a route that would be seasonal and at most 2x weekly and Nashville way more likely. That would be close enough I guess. The draw back is there's nothing connecting Nashville and Memphis besides interstate for travelers used to rail. Hello WN? Would be such a short flight on a bird too big.

Surprisingly the Aussies are up there, that's 787 territory. There's really no LCC for Japan and Australia and the rest are partnered up with US legacies. I think a lot of those Aussies are coming via AA and Dallas.

Probably Very little in the case of the shorter transatlantic routes. The 737Max would be in there by now or be there very soon.

Anything bigger the 787 can take care of. Personally i think very little in the case of TATL, but may be helpful in adding more frequancy to current routes.

A plane for which we do not know the size (and 220-270 is a big difference depending on the cabin layout you choose), for which we do not know the range and then consider the chances of that plane in the 2025-2027 market? Seems a bit like guessing to me.

Arion640 wrote:

Probably Very little in the case of the shorter transatlantic routes. The 737Max would be in there by now or be there very soon.

Anything bigger the 787 can take care of. Personally i think very little in the case of TATL, but may be helpful in adding more frequancy to current routes.

I'd revise that to very little full stop.

Are there many routes that a 767 or 757 have/are serving that wouldn't be replaceable by an A321LR or a 787/A330?

Iirc Boeing said that the 797 would have 20% more pax and range than the 75, but we can't be sure.

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.

Themotionman wrote:

We know very little at the moment about the economics of the 797. Aviation week reports a seat count of about 220-270 with a range of about 5200nmi.

How is this not a 787-8?

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.

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.

Nicely done. So you took two 757 tubes, squished them together until everything fit, gave it a common wing & engines and stretched it twice. Who'd a thunk it?? The range & load combinations add much flexibility.
Everyone likes the A-340 two-four-two seating plus it can haul LD-3s. I think it's a winner!!
Thanks,
Cary

32andBelow wrote:

Themotionman wrote:

We know very little at the moment about the economics of the 797. Aviation week reports a seat count of about 220-270 with a range of about 5200nmi.

How is this not a 787-8?

Perhaps there's a bit more to it than just the seating capacity?

My guess is, Icelandair will get a few and expand their North American destinations and even replace some 757.

Caryjack wrote:

Nicely done. So you took two 757 tubes, squished them together until everything fit, gave it a common wing & engines and stretched it twice. Who'd a thunk it?? The range & load combinations add much flexibility.
Everyone likes the A-340 two-four-two seating plus it can haul LD-3s. I think it's a winner!!
Thanks,
Cary

Actually its nothing like the 757.

Dimensions, weights, passenger and fuel capacity closely matches the A310. That is for the shortest version the 797-8. There is then two simple stretches with the extra weight of the fuselage and passengers requiring the fuel carried to limited to 80% and 60% capacity for the 797-9 and 797-10.

Also it can't carry LD3's. The A330 fuselage is as narrow as you can get to fit that container. This design uses LD3-45's which are used on the much smaller A320 family. This is allows the height of the lower cargo section to be reduced. This will reduce drag slightly. It provides 90% of the advantages of an oval fuselage with none of the disadvantages.

An oval fuselage when pressurised would have the roof trying to bulge upwards

RJMAZ wrote:

An oval fuselage when pressurised would have the roof trying to bulge upwards

.. and the reverse for the sides. You put the floors into compression to keep the form. Bad design.

( what you see on previous designs is either fully round ( like A300 222" X-section ) or
intersecting circles ( like B377, 737, 757, .. ) where the chord between points of intersection
represents the floor which then is under tension to replace the "broken" hoop forces.

CFRP or not the penalty in additional structure is afaics large.
you have to design for buckling and not for simple tension.

I think about secondary braziliani cities ( CNF,POA, CWB, REC,SSA, BSB, FOR, NAT) to US and Europe

From what I've read the 797 will be a 2-model family, 7-abreast, with ranges between 4000nmi and 5400nmi, and seating 240 - 270

So... a 240pax base model with a 5200nmi range, and a 270 pax larger model with a 4300nmi range (or something like that). The latter would be a simple stretch of the former, so commonality would be at least 90% and possibly 95% or greater.

In theory that could result in Atlanta to Athens with the smaller model (Delta would be interested for sure).

Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, smaller Eastern Coast cities... lots of growth room to be had with a "replacement for smaller 767s" MOM.

WIederling wrote:

.. and the reverse for the sides. You put the floors into compression to keep the form. Bad design.

Any oval design where it is wider than it is high would also have the floor under compression. That is not a deal breaker. My design avoids any flex in the skin as the upper and lower lobes are still perfect circles.

The vertical beams on either side of the ld3-45's would be under tension and would support the floor under compression.

MIflyer12 wrote:

What's the practical range, what's the seat count, and what's the CASM improvement vs. a 757-200?

Hello, MIfyler12, from what i can gather the main idea of the 797 is to replace the 757-200 as it is becoming a bit dated. however, there are some small improvements such as it is to be a twin-aisle plane with a capacity for 220 to 270 passengers and a range of 5,200 nautical miles, according to Aviation Week. The new airliner would fill a gap between the narrow-body 737 MAX and wide-body 787 Dreamliner, which have ranges as high as 3,800 nmi and over 8,000 nmi, respectively. Boeing wants a plane to fly routes in that gap around 5,000 nmi—say, New York to Moscow, or even further. whereas the 757-200 has a slightly smaller range of 3,800nmi.

I think about secandary brazilian cities ( CNF, BSB, REC, SSA, FOR, POA, CWB ) to US and Europe

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.

I think it would be a perfect aircraft for CLT and ATL. Giving passengers the ability to avoid EWR, JFK, PHL and instead use CLT and ATL for transatlantic connection. Expect the US Big 3 to be on the order sheet fairly quickly

I expect indigo to enter the transatlantic market with the 797. With Heathrow to LaGuardia being the first route.

OA940 wrote:

Iirc Boeing said that the 797 would have 20% more pax and range than the 75, but we can't be sure.

Yes from what i have sen of it so far it will have an improved range than the 757, from 3,800nmi to around 5,200nmi which will allow it to be a much more flexible aircraft for flying to holiday destinations or longer haul flights from LHR to DEL for example, a flight which wouldn't have been achievable with a 757.

LPSHobby wrote:

I think about secandary brazilian cities ( CNF, BSB, REC, SSA, FOR, POA, CWB ) to US and Europe

Yes I agree as it is said to have an upgraded distance capacity (3,800nmi on the 757 to 5,200 on the 797) it will make flights from YYZ to VCP possible without any changeovers which could not be achieved with the 757.

Themotionman wrote:

I think it would be a perfect aircraft for CLT and ATL. Giving passengers the ability to avoid EWR, JFK, PHL and instead use CLT and ATL for transatlantic connection. Expect the US Big 3 to be on the order sheet fairly quickly

Yes, the 797 would be perfect for that as ques at these airports can be ridiculous at peak times.

tlecam wrote:

Themotionman wrote:

I think it would be a perfect aircraft for CLT and ATL. Giving passengers the ability to avoid EWR, JFK, PHL and instead use CLT and ATL for transatlantic connection. Expect the US Big 3 to be on the order sheet fairly quickly

I had CLT in mind as well. I also think that PHL, DTW, MSP could see additional TATL routes. Large hubs with connecting passengers; could be an economical plane to serve Europe beyond what is served today.

DL could get rid of the 763 on MSP-LHR and replace it with a 797 (That's if they don't replace it with an A330 beforehand)

Themotionman wrote:

I think it would be a perfect aircraft for CLT and ATL. Giving passengers the ability to avoid EWR, JFK, PHL and instead use CLT and ATL for transatlantic connection. Expect the US Big 3 to be on the order sheet fairly quickly

I had CLT in mind as well. I also think that PHL, DTW, MSP could see additional TATL routes. Large hubs with connecting passengers; could be an economical plane to serve Europe beyond what is served today.

hazzating wrote:

I expect indigo to enter the transatlantic market with the 797. With Heathrow to LaGuardia being the first route.

I don't believe the US government would take very kindly to that as they don't allow an aircraft like the 797 into LGA as the limit doesn't allow flights from LHR to LGA as this would impede the limit of flight length.

Arion640 wrote:

Probably Very little in the case of the shorter transatlantic routes. The 737Max would be in there by now or be there very soon.

Anything bigger the 787 can take care of. Personally i think very little in the case of TATL, but may be helpful in adding more frequancy to current routes.

Yes, I think it could help with adding more frequency to other routes, although this would impact the lifespan of the plane, so sadly, this may not come to fruition as airlines obviously don't want to lose money through having to buy/rent more aircraft.

]

hazzating wrote:

I expect indigo to enter the transatlantic market with the 797. With Heathrow to LaGuardia being the first route.

The perimeter rule prevents flights over 1,500 miles from operating into LGA (with very few exceptions). LGA will not be seeing European services any time soon.

mjoelnir wrote:

My guess is, Icelandair will get a few and expand their North American destinations and even replace some 757.

Yes, I think the will do that too as the 797 is said to have a greater range than the 757, so will be able to reach the expanded north american destinations they crave so they will be able to fly to places like LAX, SFO, SAN and PHX. this will expand the business and their fleet rapidly, so i expect them to be high up on the order list. I also expect them to, as you said, replace some of their older 757's as they have started to become outdated, hence the reason for making the 797.

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.

I was about to say the same thing

The short answer is: NONE!
Even without knowing what exactly a 797/MOM will be, there isn't a single relevant TATL market today that can't be flown either with an A320NEO/737MAX or a A330/787. I think this "alleged" plane would be far more relevant in just about every other market other than TATL. The N.America-S.America, Europe-Africa, and Asia-Africa in particular could benefit from such a plane.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Although occasionally (and mistakenly) belittled on this forum, a globe and a string are great for coming up with a 'first cut' . Add in that west bound is harder than east bound.

You make your point. I'll take Great Circle Mapper vs. the globe and string. To merge your criticism with mine, we don't even know the length of the string yet. The question is little more specific than 'Where can planes go?'

People who don't get trained to ask better questions keep asking poor questions. Poor questions don't lead to comprehensive understanding.

At viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1374685&p=19882859#p19882477 in our other thread, we read:

RJMAZ wrote:

Compared to 10 years ago there is now twice as many destination pairs with more than 10 daily flights.

Compared to 10 years ago there are now 4 times as many widebody aircraft on short routes under 1000nm. Even though these aircraft have poor CASM the airlines simply can't add extra narrowbody flights.

This is a worldwide trend. The MOM will solve this problem.

This is not the same as the A380 example where there is a single flight per day between destination pairs.

We're not talking about a small market here. The thickest routes conveniently require the most number of narrowbody aircraft. Pareto's 80/20 principle for example 20% of the worlds busiest routes may use 80% of the worlds aircraft.

So even if only the thickest 10% routes get upgauged to the MOM that would represent over 30% of the narrowbody aircraft replaced.

My CASM analysis is slightly conservative too. The 797-10 best case scenario it will have superior CASM to all 737 and A320's on short routes. The 797-8 best case will have better CASM than the 787-8 and A330 on medium haul.

In all economy config with 30inch pitch the 797-10 would have 380 seats. The A321 has 220 seats.

The 797-10 weighs 65% more but has 75% more seats.

Seems like a lot of the current 757s and 767s flying TATL routes can be replaced by MOMs, and more frequencies can be added on trunk routes, and new city pairs can be added. All are at play.

LAX to some of the more obscure south pacific destinations outside of Hawaii, PPT, and NAN. Also this thing could provide FI with a lot more belly volume for fish.

airbazar wrote:

The short answer is: NONE!
Even without knowing what exactly a 797/MOM will be, there isn't a single relevant TATL market today that can't be flown either with an A320NEO/737MAX or a A330/787. I think this "alleged" plane would be far more relevant in just about every other market other than TATL. The N.America-S.America, Europe-Africa, and Asia-Africa in particular could benefit from such a plane.

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.

I believe that a "MOM" capable of intercontinental flights would be a failure. The economical range should not exceed the distance a single crew can legally perform outbound and back inbound to the point of origin during one single shift. Of course they could always develope an additional longer-range derivate for some niche customers, but that fat lady would not be competible on 99% of the potential markets.

gregn21 wrote:

LAX to some of the more obscure south pacific destinations outside of Hawaii, PPT, and NAN. Also this thing could provide FI with a lot more belly volume for fish.

Yes, it would provide them with lots more volume for fish which would be much more economical for them. i could also see them snapping some up to increase their fleet to reach some destinations they cant reach with 757's such as RKV to DEL, a flight which wouldn't be possible in one flight with a 757.

tlecam wrote:

- US hubs to Secondary Europe - for example, the up and coming former communist Eastern European cities like Prague, Budapest.

[Public Service Announcement]
Agreed on the possibility but hopefully we can stop using descriptors like "former communist" on this forum: it's been almost 3 decades since the Iron Curtain fell (I might be snarky here and suggest we could also say "former Austrian-Hungarian Empire cities" if that makes it more obvious ). And then there's the issue of Central vs Eastern Europe - in this case, 'Central' is preferred by most people in the region for both geographic and cultural reasons.
[End of Public Service Announcement]

I am excited about something like that possibly opening up routes from FLL/MIA to all of the major South American destinations including EZE and SCL.

tphuang wrote:

I am excited about something like that possibly opening up routes from FLL/MIA to all of the major South American destinations including EZE and SCL.

Yes, I think if the 797 has the possibility to do this, it could be revolutionary for air travel. I expect this plane to be in very high demand from airlines all over the world because of what it could unlock in terms of new routes that were not possible before because of the inferior range on the 757.

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.

DAL to Houston Hooks Southwest to HHN to MOM go into the kitchen and make me and 797 sandwiches for me and my girlfriend..The OP means nothing. Show us a 797 and who is MOM? 797? MOM?

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.

Yes, that's why I think that the shortest model would by far be their best seller as it would allow for these new routes to be offered by airlines, which would reduce travel time for passengers through changeovers. generally the 797 family will be far more economical than the 757 for both passengers and airlines as they will be able offer flights with no change overs to new destinations and to those they wouldn't be able to do that with the 757 before it. this would also make customers much more willing to travel as they wont have to deal with the dreaded changeover times which can often be an overnight occurrence, costing the passenger even more money to fly to a destination which may soon be achievable in one flight by 2025.

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.

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?