Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)
-   -   717 phase out? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/120677-717-phase-out.html)

Piklepausepull 03-23-2019 06:09 AM

Maybe we could just get new 767's in the UPS configuration....with the lav in the cockpit, and 4 jumpseats!

DWC CAP10 USAF 03-23-2019 06:51 AM


Originally Posted by FL370esq (Post 2787244)
Spitballin' but.....Ed Bastian? 😁

Info on this site is akin to this:

“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! 😎

DWC CAP10 USAF 03-23-2019 06:51 AM


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

Thanks Saturn! Time to fire up the SkyHub account!

Mesabah 03-23-2019 12:15 PM


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?

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.

sailingfun 03-23-2019 01:24 PM


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.

The original 767-300 operated with 48,000 lbs of thrust. With better wings and reductions in weight I suspect 45 to 50,000 lbs of thrust would allow a 767-300 sized airframe while maintaining the range of the 767-300 ER.

Baradium 03-23-2019 01:25 PM


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.

If they have a new engine for the size class of a 767, they could make a 797 with it. The whole point was the engine doesn't exist. An engine that does exist would still be more efficient on a new composite airframe than keeping the 767, which as you said would not be efficient enough.

Planetrain 03-23-2019 01:27 PM


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.

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.

Baradium 03-23-2019 01:29 PM


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.

They are. The 797 is supposed to be a shorter range aircraft than a 787. the 787 doesn't have much different fuel burn on short to mid range flights because of weight to carry the long range load.

Bert Sampson 03-23-2019 01:31 PM


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

Great vid, thanks!

sailingfun 03-23-2019 01:42 PM


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.

They are not. The 787-800 seats more than the 767-300 and has a almost 100,000 lb higher gross weight. The 787-900 which is what should be compared to the 767-300 ER seats substantially more and has almost 150,000 lb higher takeoff weight.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:03 AM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands