The Boeing '797'

[SluggoF16]

Originally Posted by Unsettomati

Those 'every hour on the hour' is what the customer demands - the flexibility in travel times is an integral part of catering to the business traveller, the bread and butter of the industry. That's why there's a line of 737 flights between a given pair of cities instead of half the numbers of flights by wide-bodies. It's not that no one's ever thought of the latter. It's that it isn't as effective a business model as the former.

Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) was running L-1011s between Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento and San Francisco. It took twice as long (or longer) to board the L-1011 as the 727 and 737, and for a commuter flight the costs were not being recovered (fares from LAX to SFO were $25). PSA took delivery of several L-1011 and immediately mothballed them without ever flying them because it could not make a profit, a failed business model. In the meantime, LAX-PHX, LAX-LAS and LAX-SFO flights on PSA aircraft and Air Cal 737s were scheduled every half hour (and later, on competitors such as Southwest and America West).


To some on this thread it may not seem right, but it's good business, no matter if it's the schedule, the type of aircraft used, hub-and-spoke or point-to-point, or the design of the aircraft. The latter is laughable, an aircraft is an optimization of design available at the time, and if it's not aesthetically pleasing, tough, deal with it.

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by Alaskan Mutt

One of the problems with building a new aircraft along the lines of the 757 ...

There is no doubt the 757 replacement is a hotly discussed topic. Recently the replacement has been called MOM, an acronym for "Middle Of the Market" that will have a 4000-5000 mile range and seating in the low to mid 200's.

It's clear that the shorter TATL flights are going to be run with the new generation of 737. Many people are excited by the prospect of more nonstop transatlantic flights to Shannon and Cork airports in Ireland, Manchester and Belfast in the UK, and Lyon and and possibly even Burgundy in France, plus resorts like Malaga in Spain.

But still look at the smallest Dreamliner, the 787-8 with 432 orders; 297 deliveries; = 135 unfilled (Summary through April 2016). Even if the price must be dropped to make the product more attractive and extend the production schedule, doesn't that make more sense than spending upwards of $10 billion to design MOM?

Ultimately Boeing Yellowstone 1, was to completely replace the Boeing 737, 757, and 767-200 product lines (100- to 250-passenger market), but in November 2014, it was reported that Boeing plans to delay a new aircraft to replace the 737 until the 2030 time frame.

Some analysts have argued that Boeing should develop a 757 follow on, just to keep their engineers busy between the B777-max and Yellowstone (i.e. 2020-2025 time frame).

[OldChina]

I look on this as an opportunity that Boeing won't come to miss. And that means that I take passenger-plane 'stretching' to be an abomination that increases the craft's bias to pitch, yaw or snap in two. Therefore a 757-inspired design that's a little wider and can cruise easily at over 600 MPH for over 6000 miles would be worth making; or, for 12 000 miles or more, maybe at over Mach 1, a taller 747-type with an air-intake atop the base of each wing that can switch between feeding a jetengine behind it or a shared ramjet astern, would be worth designing. But with the common stock probably set to do well anyway and the (overpaid?) staff ensconced, there may be insufficient incentive for something special to emerge from this. Bring back the days of rock'n'roll! Goïng Corporation knows this

[OldChina]

Another thing. What would succeed the 797? I propose the (to be) famous 808

[M3 Mitch]

Originally Posted by OldChina

I look on this as an opportunity that Boeing won't come to miss. And that means that I take passenger-plane 'stretching' to be an abomination that increases the craft's bias to pitch, yaw or snap in two. Therefore a 757-inspired design that's a little wider and can cruise easily at over 600 MPH for over 6000 miles would be worth making; or, for 12 000 miles or more, maybe at over Mach 1, a taller 747-type with an air-intake atop the base of each wing that can switch between feeding a jetengine behind it or a shared ramjet astern, would be worth designing. But with the common stock probably set to do well anyway and the (overpaid?) staff ensconced, there may be insufficient incentive for something special to emerge from this. Bring back the days of rock'n'roll!

Barring some sort of very unusual discovery - supersonic transport has been tried and found wanting, in terms of greatly increased fuel burn (price to passenger) for a relatively modest increase in speed, and that only over open ocean. That last could be relieved be a change in regulations allowing at least somewhat over Mach 1 over say CONUS, as Sluggo has pointed out, military jets go supersonic over CONUS at least occasionally, if they are at a high enough altitude they create no noticeable sonic boom on the ground.

But, SST was tried with Concorde, it would take you NY to London or Paris in roughly half the time of a conventional jetliner, but the trip cost about $10K. One could go full International First Class for about $3K to $4K, while this was slower, it was a good bit more luxurious than Concorde. An internet acquaintance who at least claims to own a MacLaren road car, quite well off and a serious motorhead/speed freak, posted up on another forum that he didn't consider Concorde worth the extra cost, and liked the luxury of regular First Class better. If a guy like this didn't consider it worth it, essentially no one would.

[Bull City Rising]

I got to take Qatar's A350-XWB between PHL-DOH and DOH-BOS a couple of weeks ago.

As much as I've liked the 787 transpacific flights I've been on -- Airbus seems to have Boeing's number. The A350 is the finest plane I've ever been a pax on.

Viva Airbus!

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by M3 Mitch

But, SST was tried with Concorde, it would take you NY to London or Paris in roughly half the time of a conventional jetliner, but the trip cost about $10K. One could go full International First Class for about $3K to $4K, while this was slower, it was a good bit more luxurious than Concorde.

An internet acquaintance who at least claims to own a MacLaren road car, quite well off and a serious motorhead/speed freak, posted up on another forum that he didn't consider Concorde worth the extra cost, and liked the luxury of regular First Class better. If a guy like this didn't consider it worth it, essentially no one would.

Round Trip on the Queen Mary 2 starting fares are less than $3K per person. Queen Mary 2 has a maximum speed of just over 35 mph and a cruising speed of 30 mph (so figure 120 hours to cruise for 3600 miles).

Icelandair Northern American destinations
Icelandair has Saga Class flights to Europe via Iceland for as little as $1700 round trip. You get a free layover in Iceland for up to 7 days if you so desire. But Icelandair flies only B757 and no widebodies. Saga Class does not have the luxurious flat bed seats, but you can have a nice buffet at the airport.

Icelandair (40" pitch)/(32" pitch)/((4 seats per row)/(6 seats per row))=188% ratio of space Saga/Economy
Qatar (78" pitch)/(32" pitch)/((6 seats per row)/(10 seats per row))=406% ratio of space Business/Economy

Speed is a very expensive commodity to buy. There is always a trade off with luxury. Even if I live to see point to point suborbital flights there will probably be some people who opt for subsonic flights with more luxury.

[OldChina]

Come to think of it, I'd like to re-rig a flight of Super-Constellations with all but the hostesses impeccably up-to-date – so as to take us on delectable twenty-hour cruises to Cuba &c. And maybe the Boeing─797 should come to be based on the Lockheed. Good old Howard Hughes!