42 replies to this topic

[Tesla]

The information available is mostly rumours, but United has already given a thumbs up to the design.

 

• Up to 260 seats single class config
• 7-8 abreast (probably 7)
• 4-5000nm range

All of this is rumours, but I think it is something worth keeping an eye on, as it could be the next serious advancement in aviation, especially since it is expected to be around 60 CFC (carbon fibre composites, not chlorofluorocarbons).

 

It also appears to be the right width (wide enough for 7-8 abreast, but nothing more, which is good for customer experience (2-3-2 is good)

 

 

 

Not gonna lie that looks quite impressive  

[Avelo]

The information available is mostly rumours, but United has already given a thumbs up to the design.

• Up to 260 seats single class config
• 7-8 abreast (probably 7)
• 4-5000nm range

All of this is rumours, but I think it is something worth keeping an eye on, as it could be the next serious advancement in aviation, especially since it is expected to be around 60 CFC (carbon fibre composites, not chlorofluorocarbons).

It also appears to be the right width (wide enough for 7-8 abreast, but nothing more, which is good for customer experience (2-3-2 is good)



Not gonna lie that looks quite impressive

Could be a possible Boeing 797. Who knows?

[Tesla]

Could be a possible Boeing 797. Who knows?

It looks pretty likely. Seeing as United Airlines of all people have given a thumbs up to the design and are considering it. I would be ecstatic for the return of 7 abreast. Because it is absolute heaven, there are almost no bad seats in 7 abreast. It is in my opinion the best config aside from 8 abreast (8 is better for families).

[Avelo]

It looks pretty likely. Seeing as United Airlines of all people have given a thumbs up to the design and are considering it. I would be ecstatic for the return of 7 abreast. Because it is absolute heaven, there are almost no bad seats in 7 abreast. It is in my opinion the best config aside from 8 abreast (8 is better for families).

And forget about 10-abreast in Y class on the 777, it feels soooo cramped.

[Tesla]

And forget about 10-abreast in Y class on the 777, it feels soooo cramped.

10 is good for nobody except 2+2 families who take the middle seats. Of course the children do not like that, since they do not get a window.

2+4+2 is good for almost everyone, 2-3-2 is better for solo travellers.

[Avelo]

10 is good for nobody except 2+2 families who take the middle seats. Of course the children do not like that, since they do not get a window.
2+4+2 is good for almost everyone, 2-3-2 is better for solo travellers.

The bad news is that CX and QR have already considered and confirmed that the 10-abreast layout will be the norm on all their 777 planes. How dare they!

[TNT88]

I think it would occupy B767-200 and B767-300ER market. There is no next gen aircraft that cover those markets as of today. Boeing could easily sold minimum of 1,000 of those.

[Pasti]

The information available is mostly rumours, but United has already given a thumbs up to the design.
 

• Up to 260 seats single class config
• 7-8 abreast (probably 7)
• 4-5000nm range

All of this is rumours, but I think it is something worth keeping an eye on, as it could be the next serious advancement in aviation, especially since it is expected to be around 60 CFC (carbon fibre composites, not chlorofluorocarbons).
 
It also appears to be the right width (wide enough for 7-8 abreast, but nothing more, which is good for customer experience (2-3-2 is good)
 
 
 
Not gonna lie that looks quite impressive

Although there is no true successor, IMO 767-200ER would be the best replacement. Gets 291 in max economy, has 7k nm range, and 7-8 abreast is easily achievable.

[Tesla]

Although there is no true successor, IMO 767-200ER would be the best replacement. Gets 291 in max economy, has 7k nm range, and 7-8 abreast is easily achievable.

Fuel economy. 767 struggles on that front.

[TNT88]

Yeah, too much range, the maximum for the -200ER should be around 5500nm - 6000nm at most.

[Maestro69]

Move to real world aviation since it was in the wrong forum section. Cheers.

[bAnderson]

I think Boeing just just go with a 757 MAX. Use more efficient engines with a similar body. We get to keep the 757 as it was, and the airlines get an efficient version (or at the very least new version) of an aging classic.

[Avelo]

I think Boeing just just go with a 757 MAX. Use more efficient engines with a similar body. We get to keep the 757 as it was, and the airlines get an efficient version (or at the very least new version) of an aging classic.

It may have had its weaknesses, but the 757 in AE has been a favorite of mine for its versatility.

[zortan]

It may have had its weaknesses, but the 757 in AE has been a favorite of mine for it's versatility.

Same here - as a north american airline I can use it for high-density regional routes or for shorter trans-atlantic and trans-pacific flights. The Fact that it can land on pretty short runways doesn't hurt either

[Pasti]

Maybe 767-200ER? It's pretty similar to a 757-300.

[Pasti]

Same here - as a north american airline I can use it for high-density regional routes or for shorter trans-atlantic and trans-pacific flights. The Fact that it can land on pretty short runways doesn't hurt either

 

 

Maybe a reason why all 3 legacy carriers still use it.

[Avelo]

Same here - as a north american airline I can use it for high-density regional routes or for shorter trans-atlantic and trans-pacific flights. The Fact that it can land on pretty short runways doesn't hurt either

Hence why I might consider the 757 as a potential replacement for the 727 on many of my busier trans-border routes in North America. For now I'll be using the A300B4 for select South American routes, although certain routes with less demand would use the 757 instead.

[TNT88]

To be fair, I'm still wondering now why they decided to work on B757-200 replacement instead of B767-200/-300 replacements. For sure the criteria fits better for B767 instead of B757. Also, kind of surprise that they focus the range on short range instead of regional and medium haul flights. 4000nm - 5000nm is nothing. Should ramped up the range to 5500nm for the smaller version and 6000nm for the larger one. You know, since B767-300ER is the most popular of them all, and how airlines still being forced to used it until now.

[Avelo]

To be fair, I'm still wondering now why they decided to work on B757-200 replacement instead of B767-200/-300 replacements. For sure the criteria fits better for B767 instead of B757. Also, kind of surprise that they focus the range on short range instead of regional and medium haul flights. 4000nm - 5000nm is nothing. Should ramped up the range to 5500nm for the smaller version and 6000nm for the larger one. You know, since B767-300ER is the most popular of them all, and how airlines still being forced to used it until now.

But in some respects, the 767 is too big and too expensive for certain routes.

[zortan]

you know what I think about range - just give them a lot of it! There are people who fly the 77L on very short flights (Ceiba Intercontinental flies it on a 2500 mile flight that could easily be operated with a 737), and people who fly it on long flights (Qatar DOH-AKL). The more range - the more flexibility! Sure costs would be more - but you'd be able to fly it on many more routes.