Should Boeing size the 797 in the 737 or 757/767 range?
Posted by furryfelinefan_@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 85 comments
There’s been recent talk of Boeing doing a clean sheet 797. Would they be better off sizing the family around the 737 (150-230 seats) or the 757/767-200 series (220-270 seats)?
Jealous_Medium_9464@reddit
Will NOT Happen! 2 reasons: 1) Clean Sheet is $80 -160 Billion and Boeing has $8-9 Billion in Free Cash Maybe, , , 2) Derivatives cost $40-50 Billion, , ,note to self Boeing is a profit seeking Business, , not NASA!
Velocoraptor369@reddit
Clean sheet is maybe $8-10 billion not 80-160
Jealous_Medium_9464@reddit
P & W Geared High By Pass engine was $9.3 Billion, ,USD, , BTW
keyboard_pilot@reddit
Lol yeah, did the guy confuse market value for dev cost haha
Jealous_Medium_9464@reddit
Market Value of 737 Max is $300 Billion USD BTW, ,
Jealous_Medium_9464@reddit
P &W spent $8 Billion on their Geared High Bypass engine?
Jealous_Medium_9464@reddit
737 Max was $54 Billion, , BTW.
Active_Resource_3533@reddit
The 737 max range if you include the 737max10 already encroaches on 757 capacity. They’ll most likely build an aircraft similar to the 737 and 320 family that can be built at various sizes. One that can be as small as a max 7 probably and can be scaled up to large as a 757.
Airlines seem to be leaning towards larger aircraft nowadays with how many people are flying. If Boeing can keep the aircraft efficient and cost per seat mile low airlines will keep buying larger planes.
I don’t see any advantage to a 2-2-2 compared to a 3-3. They’ll keep the interior design traditional to what airlines currently operate.
Ky1arStern@reddit
I'm also wondering if the 2-2-2 adds a lot of weight. The seat rails are more or less just features on top of the longitudinal floor beams, so I would think not, but I can't quite remember if they have to be supported differently vertically.
I'm intrigued by this idea though. I wonder how much wider the fuselage would have to be, considering I don't think you can make the aisle smaller.
The_Smallz@reddit
I’m talking out my ass but it would change where the O2 masks are placed to change between 2-2-2 vs 3-3.
Ky1arStern@reddit
Ooooh, I wasn't even thinking about that. You would have to either do a central row of bins or you would have to specifically run a line down the center for emergency stuff.
I would say that makes it more unlikely to implement unless someone can convince themselves that the airlines are really going to want the dual aisle narrow body configuration.
biggsteve81@reddit
It isn't oxygen lines that run above the seats, but chemical oxygen generators above each row of seats that are triggered by you pulling the mask down.
Ky1arStern@reddit
I know, maybe "line" wasn't the best word choice there. I meant you still have to run structure and furnishings to support and cover o2 generators. Probably not enough room to hang bins there, unless you want to design something weird that only opens to one side. Also, I forget how many masks are picked off of each generator in a typical narrow body, but if the answer is 3, then you might find yourself with a significant number of additional o2 generators, which is a lot of weight, complexity, and cost.
Overall, it's added weight and complexity for possible customer satisfaction, which is not something operators typically index for.
Rumpelforeskinn@reddit
The advantage of 2-2-2 is that the extra aisle speeds up turn arounds. Faster to get off, faster to get on. Less time on the ground, more time in the air, more flights per day per aircraft.
I'm not saying that outweighs the negatives, but it is an advantage.
scbriml@reddit
Flying around an extra aisle for zero additional revenue (no more seats) won’t impress airlines. It MAY be more comfortable and it MAY make getting on and off slightly quicker, but don’t forget, in the vast majority of cases all those passengers still have to get on and off through a single door.
ASELtoATP@reddit
Not if there’s only one door to get out of. Plus the extra aisle is floor space that can’t be sold as seating.
02nz@reddit
I don't think it speeds it by much. Whenever I've gotten off twin-aisle aircraft, it seems the bottleneck is at the aircraft door, not in the aisles. You might speed things up by a few minutes, that doesn't add up enough to even come close to justify the space and weight needed for the extra aisle.
sarahlizzy@reddit
If airlines really cared about this they’d abandon all the “boarding group H subsection J” crap and just do what Ryanair do:
“Plane’s here. Get on! Rows 1-17 front steps. Rows 18-35 rear steps. FASTER YOU COWARDS! YOU WILL NEVER REACH VALHALLA AT THIS RATE!”
02nz@reddit
AA literally has 9 boarding groups. Nine! Like that's just nuts honestly.
sarahlizzy@reddit
I had the opportunity to fly an AA 737-800 last year. Normally fly Ryanair. Same aircraft.
Ryanair can turn one round in 20 minutes. 30 is typical.
It took AA TWO HOURS.
From the point at which they started boarding to the point at which they closed the door took 45 minutes.
I timed my next Ryanair flight. 45 minutes after they started boarding we were above FL200 and I was eating my green chicken curry.
Pintail21@reddit
The longer turn times are a feature, not a bug. It leaves excess capacity so 1 delay doesn't cascade into 10 delays, then 100, then 1,000, then planes miss curfews and the whole network is affected. ULCC's need to squeeze every penny every day to stay in business, legacies are more worried about reliability because they can just make up for the inefficiency by charging $5 more per ticket.
sarahlizzy@reddit
Except Ryanair also builds in the same excess capacity. My incoming flight is regularly late, yet it departs on time. They just don’t need to build in as much because they don’t pointlessly waste time finding the slowest method known to humanity to get 200 people on a plane.
mexicoke@reddit
Domestic Japanese flights are crazy about boarding time. A full, densely configured, 767-300 takes less than 10 minutes. A 787 takes maybe 15.
02nz@reddit
My last AA flight was a 777, total chaos at the gate, even before one of the two boarding pass scanners broke.
People hate on Ryanair but I've had a good experience every time. They deliver exactly what you pay for, and consistently.
sarahlizzy@reddit
Ryanair deliberately cultivates the image they have as free marketing.
The reality is that they are actually a supremely competent, efficient airline, and their phone app is the best I’ve ever seen (apparently O Leary uses it to book flights so if something doesn’t work, it better get fixed).
TimeSpacePilot@reddit
Hey, don’t take away my Triple Executive Platinum Diamond boarding group!!
Primary-Shoe-3702@reddit
Are you including all the various "preboarding" categories?
LikelyNotSober@reddit
Also much more comfortable for passengers. Middle seats suck.
twarr1@reddit
The LEAST important metric for airlines, at least for economy class.
penelopiecruise@reddit
an advantage of Embraer 190 is no middle seats
LikelyNotSober@reddit
The a220 too to an extent since there’s just 1 per row.
Active_Resource_3533@reddit
That’s true. That is a possible advantage. But looking at the negatives-
Potentially more overhead bins to spread them out over both aisles. More oxygen masks would be needed. So more maintenance expenses and more things to potentially break. There also could be an issue with staffing. FAA minimum is 1 FA per 50 seats. Some aircraft require more FAs than just the standard 1:50 depending on the seating configuration of the aircraft.
Additionally a 2-2-2 config would require a larger cabin width when adding an extra aisle which could have an impact on gate access at certain airports.
Quowe_50mg@reddit
You'd have to redo the entire fuselage due to the extra width
sofixa11@reddit
Extra aisle is extra wasted space and extra tube diameter with extra drag, so yeah, unlikely.
coocoocachio@reddit
They also like being able to fly narrow bodies aircraft transatlantic. Nashville to Iceland flight is a 737 which feels crazy.
Kilo_Juliett@reddit
I think it makes more sense to do something similar to a 757.
757s are aging and there is no replacement for them in the cargo world.
CheapMonkey34@reddit
Boeing needs a 737/757 replacement platform. The 321XLR is a game changer for long haul and Boeing has nothing to compete with.
Sea-Ingenuity-9508@reddit
Wondering if the XLR is going to be a game changer…from a financial perspective, especially on long haul flights, if one looks at a combination of factors: Passenger comfort and number of meals served on long flights, max cargo capacity, extra fuel, and longer production time to assemble the plane.
SomewhatDankMeme@reddit
The A321xlr has ~500 orders. That sounds impressive but it’s a very small portion of the narrow body market. I think the jury is still out on how big of a “game changer” that plane will be. I say that BTW as someone who loves the A321xlr concept.
CheapMonkey34@reddit
You're right that you're cautiously optimistic, but I don't think you can compare its order book to the other narrow bodies. There's not really something else in its class, but if you compare it against a B788 or A332 it is not doing quite so bad.
Yesthisisme50@reddit
The MAX 7 has a longer range than the 321XLR
Kojetono@reddit
Not even close. Max 7 has a range of 3800 nm, the a321xlr - 4700.
It can't even match the older a321lr at 4000nm.
Ouestlabibliotheque@reddit
Boeing is too busy optimizing the 777X development for shareholders and eating grass right now to even think about another aircraft in the pipeline.
The reality is that Airbus has their number for this generation and seems like they may for the next as well.
thisisinput@reddit
I would think a 2-3-2 configuration to replace the 757/767 lineup with freighter options would be a good piece of the market for a 797 variant. The 737 isn't going anywhere and the 787 captures the larger configuration market.
Clemen11@reddit
The 737/A320 size range is currently the most widely used size for medium haul and it is the most common and widespread plane size. Both Boeing and Airbus have made more modern planes than the B737 and A320 for long haul (think A350, B777, B787), and the B737 specifically is basically a long chain of modernizations that are glued onto a plane with roots in the 1960´s, with the competition being 20 years newer but still an aged design in the A320 family (although this one has more range for improvement. I feel the 737 line reached its peak in the NG series and the MAX series was an overstep).
A new 737 sized plane, built with modern technology, modern standards for safety, and the massive leap in efficiency currently acheived by modern plane engine design and fuselage design (not to mention composite materials reducing overall weight of the plane for the same size and capacity, allowing it to be more efficient on a fuel to weight ratio) would absolutely shock the market.
And if you want a plane slightly smaller than a 737 or A320, take a look at what Embraer pulled with the E195-E2
DentateGyros@reddit
What safety features do modern planes have that the 737s don’t? Genuinely curious
sofixa11@reddit
EICAS (screen which tells you everything wrong and what actions to take). There are multiple 737 crashes where pilots shut down the wrong engine after an engine failure, which wouldn't have happened with an EICAS telling them which engine is dead.
Fly by wire and all the safety protections Airbus bake in, which make it impossible to stall the plane in normal conditions.
SubarcticFarmer@reddit
The 737 NG and newer DO tell you which engine is dead. Ar least use examples that apply.
FlankingCanadas@reddit
737s aren't flying with decades old analog avionics that don't have EICAS and other modern capabilities.
sofixa11@reddit
I thought even 737 Maxes don't have EICAS due to the shared type certificate with the older 737s. Do new ones have EICAS? Googling around seems to indicate that they don't.
Spark_Ignition_6@reddit
One of the biggest stall-related airliner crashes in recent history was a fly-by-wire Airbus.
sofixa11@reddit
Indeed, and Airbus improved their user interface and how data is provided to help future cases where this happens again.
keyboard_pilot@reddit
We can point to individual features like eicas or fbw but someone's always gonna devil's advocate "but this one time..." So honestly, a lot is also in the cohesiveness and modernity of a whole newer design. Newer planes aka not based on 1960s tech like the 737 haven't had decades of changes required by regs or market and improvements that needed to be cobbled together to sort of work. Bottom line, a cohesive more up to date design inherently makes operating the damn thing safer simply by virtue of everything working better together.
You can probably find similar situations with equipment in your day to day life. Using a tool or appliance designed with all the functions from the outset tends to go better than something 50 years old retrofitted to achieve a function.
ViperSocks@reddit
Fly by wire for a start.
Signal_Quarter_74@reddit
Or take a look at the A220
HokieAero@reddit
The 787 already is the 767 replacement. And since the big regional jets are here, no need for the 797 to have to cover the 737-600 or -700, so I would design the 797 to replace the B737-800/-900 up to B757-200/-300 size.
02nz@reddit
Exactly, you can't optimize the 797 to compete with both the A220 and the A321, between the two, aim for the A321.
Mike__O@reddit
It will probably be bigger than a 737. It will absolutely be taller to avoid the ground clearance issues that the 737 has.
I think the target size will probably be somewhere around 737-9 or 757-200, with the ability to scale up or down. Based on current sales of 737s and the A320 family, it seems that there's a clear preference for larger airplanes given that the longer 737s and A321 are the best sellers of those respective types.
txhenry@reddit
Sounds about right, as long as it can keep 737 economics with new tech.
nrselleh@reddit
Yup, they gotta make a narrowbody with modern engineering & manufacturing and 18" higher landing gear.
OkSatisfaction9850@reddit
Really hope something similar to 757 size or shape. Such a beautiful aircraft. Totally get that beauty is not the standard here
keyboard_pilot@reddit
Yes but there is some accuracy to the truism : the nicer it looks, the better it flies
OkSatisfaction9850@reddit
Having a rethink on this. Maybe the A321XLR will be a niche aircraft flying in smaller city pairs. For large cities it doesn’t have the capacity of a 787/777 A330/350 and won’t be used much (maybe odd hours or extra seasonal). So just maybe, like the 757 it has a limited use and Boeing will see that and ignore the space
SomewhatDankMeme@reddit
They probably want something that fills the market for 737-800/900 to 757 sized planes. The 737-700’s old market segment will be filled by the A220 & E190.
diderooy@reddit
Richard Aboulafia has been reporting for months that Boeing isn't doing a clean sheet anytime soon (and quoting Calhoun, who said "nothing new this decade").
I can see a quote of Ortberg of "at the right time in the future", which seems meaninglessly vague to me...is there anything else being murmured about?
HonoraryCanadian@reddit
Every manufacturer is constrained by the Aircraft Design Group categories which are used, among other things, to define gate spaces. If you want to replace the thousands of A320s and B737s you need to fit in Group III, wingspan 36m. The A321 XLR has a wingspan of... 36m. Same with the Max 10. Same with the C919. The thing is, you're not going to get a plane much bigger than the XLR with such a small wingspan.
Then there's cabin length. 6 abreast is standard because 7 needs an extra aisle. With circular cross sections that's about 65% more frontal area for one more seat across. Not ideal at all. And six across makes for a very, very long plane when you want north of 200 seats. There's just no good combination of width and length that efficiently fits between 200 and 240 seats.
Without a radically different design I think the next plane will look an awful lot like a modernized A321. It might have folding wingtips, bleedless architecture, better cabin pressure and humidity, and improved automation. But it'll be very familiar in size and shape.
keyboard_pilot@reddit
It's too bad Boeing couldn't get their composite fuselages to scale better on a cost perspective. Al-Li for a narrowbody seems to be just fine. So yeah only thing Boeing could have that would help with the marketing numbers is porting over the bleedless system.
Don't even think folding wings would be worth the weight for that size of plane unless we're talking ultra high aspect ratio truss. Now that would be more interesting....and maybe uncomfortable over the NA without some serious load alleviation fbw
Griffie@reddit
I always thought it’d be cool to take the 747-SP and revamp it to be a twin engine, composite wing and fuselage.
Family_Shoe_Business@reddit
IMO it should be a clean sheet 737 redesign with multiple configs that allow it to do TATL like the 321XLR. Higher ground clearance.
Glen_Echo_Park@reddit
They are long overdue for a clean sheet 737 replacement. I much prefer the 320 family over the 737.
TheUnkown696@reddit
Think Boeing need to concentrate on sorting out the on-going issues before adventuring into new or upgraded aircraft.
nukii@reddit
The lead time on a clean sheet design is huge, they need to start now to have any hope of producing them in the 2030s.
sofixa11@reddit
They've already said they won't do anything on a new design before engines are ready, so somewhere in 2030s. Admittedly it was under the old CEO and the new one is too new in the role to change course, but considering all their ongoing issues, IMO it's unlikely they start serious work until 2028, when they should have 777X ramping up production, 737 Max at the production rate they want.
This means that Airbus will have multiple years of head start on them (they're already working on future designs). Unless Airbus make a horrific blunder (say they go with hydrogen propulsion and their new design(s) are extremely dangerous and inefficient), Boeing will be playing catch-up and might cede even more market share for even longer.
Majortom_67@reddit
This is true but they also need to replace the 737/757
Signal_Quarter_74@reddit
Look at the X-66A, that’s the 797 or pretty close to it. Definitely composite wings, 90% chance composite fuselage. Fuselage crosssection tbd, will either be a 3-3 or an oval 2-2-2 or 2-3-2.
That’s what I have been told, or what I have surmised from whispers in the Boeing wind
Trashy_pig@reddit
Would be cool if they did a two planes that could cover the gap from 737 to 767 which share trypsin rating like 757/767
02nz@reddit
2-2-2 is never going to happen.
I_like_cake_7@reddit
I completely agree. A 2-2-2 configuration would waste so much fuel carrying around the extra weight and structure that would be required to accommodate the extra fuselage width to allow that configuration. A 3-3 configuration is going to be more fuel efficient over a 2-2-2 config every single time.
Arctic_Chilean@reddit
Yep. Too much wasted/unused space from the second isle. 3-3 or 2-3-2 are more feasible.
Edw121389@reddit
If they can design a 2-2-2 or 2-3-2 with similar or better fuel efficiency. While still classified as narrow body compared to the current max aircraft it'll definitely change the game for airlines capabilities to turn around service quicker with more passengers.
Sweetcheels69@reddit
It’ll be a short wide body. Almost like Airbus A310 or A300.
Jet-Rep@reddit
2-2-2 twin isle aircraft. Imagine the gate turn times because of quicker boarding / off-boarding!
iteafreely@reddit
They need a single-aisle long haul to compete with the 321XLR or they will be crushed IMHO.
Arctic_Chilean@reddit
It'll probably start at 737MAX-9 size on the smaller end, and be scaled up to cover the 757-200 and encroach on 767-200 at the higher end. Basically a nice size that wedges between the 737MAX-9 and 787-8
catsdrooltoo@reddit
I think it will be a 737 size with more composites, maybe fully composite or just wings. I could see something that starts a bit higher capacity than current and goes a little higher than the max 10 into 757 territory.