Whatever Boeing does, they are going to have to absolutely knock it out of the park efficiency wise. Airbus is going to be able to sell 330NEO's and 321NEO LR's for a song as the development costs were paid for a very long time ago.

I think Boeing is going to lose this one They have dug themselves into a 737 hole, and they can't figure out how to get out.

As far as single or double isle, double isle isn't any good until you get to 9 across. The 767 was 7 across. For 1 extra seat per row, you also got an isle. The 767 was 50% heavier than a 757, for 16% more seats. That was not a good tradeoff. There will never be another double isle aircraft with 7 across seating in coach.

Boeing has let their marketing people do deception before. The Sonic Cruiser was just that.

If I wanted a double isle MOM aircraft, I would take a 787 fuselage, and put a new, smaller, lighter wing, with smaller engines, and less fuel capacity. Same systems. Development costs go way down, obviously same type rating.

Looks legit:

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h2.../IMG_1847.jpeg

CG looks a little off, but other wise, good to go!

They're going with the proven MD-11 aft CG theory.

It was called the 787-3... and it didn't get a single order.

JAL and All Nippon originally ordered the 787-3 (more than 40 airframes between the two airlines), but all orders were ultimately converted to longer range, earlier certified 787-8.

But the 767 blows the 757 away with cargo capacity and range. I routinely come back from Europe with a car and pallets in the belly. The capability and mission are totally different, which I'm sure more than absorbs trade off of weight and capacity.

Thus the 783 has no orders.

The 787-3 has no orders because it was canceled after all the original 787-3 orders were changed to the 787-8 variant.

But we're arguing semantics - that variant ended up as little more than vaporware.

3000nm is too little range, but a lighter, shorter-winged, less expensive 5000-5500nm version might be attractive without cannibalizing -8 orders too much.

Still wouldn't fix the issue of continued evolution of a 50 year old narrowbody design instead of a revolutionary new narrowbody design, though...