![]() |
Maybe we could just get new 767's in the UPS configuration....with the lav in the cockpit, and 4 jumpseats!
|
Originally Posted by FL370esq
(Post 2787244)
Spitballin' but.....Ed Bastian? 😁
“Um, he's sick. My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.” Written document from said source or video where I hear the words out of their mouth is what I trust. You are a funny guy! 😎 |
Originally Posted by saturn
(Post 2787253)
Skyhub. Select group: Events Expressway. Use search function: Leadership Engagement Series. Choose video on Feb 13th. View starting at 45:07-47:16. :)
Really good Canabus info |
Originally Posted by Baradium
(Post 2787914)
If it could e a 767 NEO it could be a 797, you already said that the problem is engines in that thrust class?
|
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2788264)
Boeing sent out an RFP for a 45K-50K lbs engine with less than 7000lbs dry weight, and is a minimum 25% more fuel efficient than the Pratt PW2000. That means the 797 would be smaller than 767, but slightly larger than a 757. If they simply re-engine the 767, it would be cheaper to keep it a 767, than certify a new airplane the same size as a 767. It's definitely feasible to build the 797, the problem is the engine manufactures will take 10 years to get that clean slate engine, that was requested in the RFP. Boeing could simply go with the current Pratt PW2000, but the A321XLR would destroy it in operating costs.
|
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2788264)
Boeing sent out an RFP for a 45K-50K lbs engine with less than 7000lbs dry weight, and is a minimum 25% more fuel efficient than the Pratt PW2000. That means the 797 would be smaller than 767, but slightly larger than a 757. If they simply re-engine the 767, it would be cheaper to keep it a 767, than certify a new airplane the same size as a 767. It's definitely feasible to build the 797, the problem is the engine manufactures will take 10 years to get that clean slate engine, that was requested in the RFP. Boeing could simply go with the current Pratt PW2000, but the A321XLR would destroy it in operating costs.
|
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2788264)
Boeing sent out an RFP for a 45K-50K lbs engine with less than 7000lbs dry weight, and is a minimum 25% more fuel efficient than the Pratt PW2000. That means the 797 would be smaller than 767, but slightly larger than a 757. If they simply re-engine the 767, it would be cheaper to keep it a 767, than certify a new airplane the same size as a 767. It's definitely feasible to build the 797, the problem is the engine manufactures will take 10 years to get that clean slate engine, that was requested in the RFP. Boeing could simply go with the current Pratt PW2000, but the A321XLR would destroy it in operating costs.
|
Originally Posted by Planetrain
(Post 2788294)
Aren’t the 767 and 787 virtually the same size? BA wouldn’t want to build a cheap 767NEO if it was a sales threat to the 787.
|
Originally Posted by saturn
(Post 2787253)
Skyhub. Select group: Events Expressway. Use search function: Leadership Engagement Series. Choose video on Feb 13th. View starting at 45:07-47:16. :)
Really good Canabus info |
Originally Posted by Planetrain
(Post 2788294)
Aren’t the 767 and 787 virtually the same size? BA wouldn’t want to build a cheap 767NEO if it was a sales threat to the 787.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:03 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands