Very nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The 330/340 were originally 2-4-2. Some asian carriers are now squeezing in 3-3-3. Very tight. I just sat in one. It sucked.

I think 9 across is the sweet spot for double isle. Anything else is structurally/space inefficient. 7 across we will never see again, unless it was narrow body 3-4 across. That would be too painful to board/service etc.

The 330NEO is going to be hard to compete against when you add it the cost of the aircraft. I think Boeing is doing smoke and mirrors.

 

Well your wrong, the two are not the same size. This subject has been written on before so why are you spreading the myth again!

787 is wider (cabin width and exterior), longer, holds more freight, burns less fuel, and so much more than the 767. The 767 was designed from the start as a domestic coast to coast airplane while the 787 has always been an international long range design.

But this stupid myth goes back to the integration discussions so just remember this; different designs and missions from the beginning.

 

Clean-sheet engines might imply a few things... Higher cruise speed and different integration concepts (above wing, integrated into tail, etc) are just the start. It'll add risk and development time but if they really want to push the product out ahead of the tech curve they're gonna need to pull out all the stops.

A mini-787 with squashed dual-aisle cabin and engines above the wing or one integrated into the tail for wake energy transfer, or whatever, might do it but would still be an evolution of what we've got already. All of the NASA-sponsored concepts under investigation (like BWB and distributed propulsion) are too far out in the future I think.

 

797 will be a drone.

 

"Mr. Bee? I'm sorry...it's a drone."

 

Aircraft turn times matter a lot for hub and spoke domestic, and point to point. They matter very little for 6-11 hour international flights.

Nobody every loved the 757 except the pilots and airlines. United spent 20 years trying to turn a 757 in less than an hour. When gas was cheap, you wanted to maximize aircraft and crew utilization. 737-900's and 321's didn't sell well back when gas was cheap prior to 2007.

When gas went to 100+ dollars, the pie chart of airline costs changed dramatically. All of a sudden, gas was the #1 expense by far. The elephant in the room became fuel cost per available seat mile. Even SWA couldn't stand it anymore and bought NG800's because their 700's were killing them on this basis.

Gas is still higher than it was for most of the last 40 years, but the execs are hedging their bets by buying long skinny airplanes. And no, you can't turn a 900 or 321 in 20 minutes.

I still think Boeing is either still deciding what to do, or just doing smoke an mirrors to screw with Airbus and their potential customers.

The 321NEO and 330 NEO are just to good, and too cheap to buy.

 

100,000 lbs difference in T/O weight.

 

It seems as though Boeing can only do one thing at a time.

While Airbus was turning out development on multiple new concepts the last 15 years....what did Boeing do exactly besides the 787? Stretch a 73? Re-engine the 74?

They are 10 years behind, hope Boeing can catch up.

 

Cornered the entire air freight market and created the most important long haul aircraft of the past 10 years, the 777-300ER.