iscover
Randy Tinseth remembers the first time he visited Tokyo Narita Airport. It was 1989 and there were Boeing 747s lined up as far as the eye could see.
Fast forward a few years and those 747s had given way to Boeing’s latest widebody workhorse, the 777.
This content is available exclusively to Australian Aviation members.
Login
Become a Member
To continue reading the rest of this article, please login.
To unlock all Australian Aviation magazine content and again unlimited access to our daily news and features, become a member today!
A monthly membership is only $5.99 or save with our annual plans.
A monthly membership is only $5.99 or save with our annual plans.
PRINT
$49.95 for 1 year
Become a Member
See benefits
- Australian Aviation quarterly print & digital magazines
- Access to In Focus reports every month on our website
MOST POPULAR
PRINT + DIGITAL
$99.95 for 1 year
Become a Member
$179.95 for 2 years
Become a Member
See benefits
- Unlimited access to all Australian Aviation digital content
- Access to the Australian Aviation app
- Australian Aviation quarterly print & digital magazines
- Access to In Focus reports every month on our website
- Access to our Behind the Lens photo galleries and other exclusive content
- Daily news updates via our email bulletin
DIGITAL
$5.99 Monthly
Become a Member
$59.95 Annual
Become a Member
See benefits
- Unlimited access to all Australian Aviation digital content
- Access to the Australian Aviation app
- Australian Aviation quarterly print & digital magazines
- Access to In Focus reports every month on our website
- Access to our Behind the Lens photo galleries and other exclusive content
- Daily news updates via our email bulletin
Paule
says:What ever configuration the 797 is, it will have to be a twin isle. My memories of the 757 in USA are of excruciatingly long boarding times as people bring onboard massive ‘carry-on’ luggage. Having just returned from Europe where a significant number of airlines use the A321 as a mid-range aircraft, it’s not unusual for boarding to commence 50 minutes before departure! There is no way Qantas or Virgin can sustain those turnaround times in Australia, particularly between SYD/MEL/BNE.
John Brett
says:In respect of the timeline story on the B787- series aircraft the writer claimed that All Nippon Airways was the launch customer of the type?
I have always understood the launch customer to be Air New Zealand? I presume that I might have my facts wrong?
John Brett
Copernican
says:ANA was the launch customer for the first model to fly, the 787-8. Air NZ was the launch customer for the second version, the B787-9, which has more seats and longer range. Singapore is the launch customer for the third and final model, the B787-10, which has the most seats and the shortest range of the three variants.
Daniel
says:Wouldn’t a larger 737 and a smaller 787 cover the market without developing an entire new plane?
Marc
says:@ Daniel
One doesn’t have enough range and payload, the other too much range and payload versus passenger numbers for medium haul work/versitility.
wellyboinz
says:John Brett…. you are half correct.
Air New Zealand were a launch customer, but for the 789 instead. Air New Zealand were originally the launch customer of the 788, but when it got delayed, they opted for the 789 instead.
All Nippon Airways was the official launch customer of the 788, and due to this were able to be the first airline to bring the 789 in to service, pipping Air New Zealand by 4 days.
Allan
says:Let’s hope Boeing get the cabin width right with this one. I’m surprised passengers even consider 9-across 787 or 10-across 777 with their narrow seats. Even 737 is only bearable on short flights. Boeing needs a size which discourages airlines from using the squeeze factor yet again to make its aircraft less comfortable than Airbus.
Stephen Boyce
says:John Brett All Nippon launched the boeing 787-8 Air NZ launched the boeing 787-9 which has been the most popular boeing 787. I hope Qantas orders the boeing 796 to replace airbus a330 and boeing 737 in time. after thet order boeing 777-8 and boeing 777-9 to replace boeing 747 and airbus a380
Gary
says:John, I think ANA was launch for the B7878 and therefore launch of the series whilst ANZ was launch for the B7879.
Gary Vermaak
says:Bring back the B757. A B757Max (NEO) is the best candidate for the job!
The next best (& a twin isle option) would be a B767 with GEnx 2b engines.
Anthony Tolhurst
says:Nope! The B767 is beginning to be missed by the flying public. B737 whatever version is a narrow tube, carrying 200 some pax of a plane with its heritage in the 60’s, the B787 an international conveyance; the (797) a sensible domestic/intercontinental twin aisle airplane that should out-767 the 767 in terms of space, capacity and efficiency. Bring it on Boeing!
Chris
says:John Brett, All Nippon was the launch customer for the Boeing 787-8 – the first variant of the 787 on 26th October 2011. Air New Zealand was the launch customer for the Boeing 787-9 on 8th July 2014 – almost 3 years later.
Lachlan
says:@John Brett
As far as I’m aware ANA was the launch customer for the 787-8, and NZ was the launch customer for the 787-9.
Holden
says:Still have to believe that the NMA is being overlooked as an opportunity for Qantas to connect new regional city international routes (akin to what Boeing discusses above) and not just centred on routes from the Australian major city hubs.
It’s been said many times before in these forums – Hobart, Canberra, Newcastle, Sunshine Coast, and Townsville – all are crying out for new direct international services, and the NMA is very likely to be the missing piece.
Existing aircraft options are either too big for these cities, or too range restricted.
It seems like a wasted opportunity just finding new routes based on Australia’s hubs, and flouts some of the utility Boeing’s Tinseth advocates.
It does still seem however that 225-275 is bigger than the supposed void in the market, and at that size might just kill the pax/range/payload combination to open up new routes out of regional Australia.
Brad
says:From a passenger point of view something akin to a 767 or A310 is ideal but getting really good aerodynamics is a lot harder on a short widebody compared with a long narrowbody.
There are lots of competing requirements for the 797/NMA and realistically it cannot be all things so something will have to give. Some airlines are after a smaller medium range aircraft whilst others want something optimised for busy short range missions. Some want quick turnarounds which indicates a widebody is preferred but others demand it fit into gates currently used by 757s and 737s.
Hopefully by the end of the year Boeing will define some basics such as cabin width and wingspan. From there, airlines will truly be able to say if the 797 is of interest or if the A321 or 787 better meet their needs.
Chris
says:I think the B797 is the B767 replacement and lead in for the B787 family as a linking aircraft between the B737max and B787 families. Reading whats online, the B797 will have a similar flight deck to the B787 to allow B797/B787 pilot utilization.
The B797 will most likely be twin aisle for 220 to 280 passengers with 2-3-2 seating configuration in a 2 class layout and a range up to 5,980nmi (11,070 km) in 2 models.
Looking at the Australian/New Zealand market, the B797 would be used for BNE/SYD/MEL and BNE/MEL/SYD to PER domestic services, Trans Tasman, Trans Pacific Australia to Fiji and Honolulu and Asia routes for Qantas and Virgin Australia.
From Air NZ point of view, if they purchase the B797, I see them being used on the Trans Tasman and Asia routes and possibility New Zealand to Fiji, Papaete and Honolulu supplementing B789/B773 services.
The B797 would be great for LLC’s in 1 or 2 class configuration operating B737 using the B797 for regional or medium long routes.
For international LCC carriers like Scoot could benefit with a B797/B787 fleet to ‘mix n match’ aircraft types on medium and long haul services.
With regards to the A321neo/A321neoLR, this is in essence the B757 replacement. At stage, Airbus does not have a B797 equivalent model unless the proposed A322 becomes a 2 twin aisle aircraft, which I doubt. Airbus could develop a A360 as a B797 equivalent being a better option, as a link between A319/A320/A321 and A330/A350 families.
Trogdor
says:@Daniel – “Wouldn’t a larger 737 and a smaller 787 cover the market without developing an entire new plane?”
Essentially the 797 is a response to the yawning gap that has opened up between the 737/A321 and larger, long range twins. The planes that used to operate in that space – the A300/310 and 757/767 are all out of production.
A330s and 787s are simply too large and heavy to be made efficient on shorter routes (which is why Qantas dropped so many dreamliner orders some years back), while the smaller twins can’t be stretched beyond where they are now.
The interesting question is whether Airbus thinks the market is big enough to justify a new plane of its own, and play catch up with the 797 in the same way Boeing did with the 767 when the A300 took off.
Random
says:Let me preface this by saying the manufacturers and airlines are smart and typically well researched.
Boeing quotes the following figures –
737Max10 – 2 class (188-204 pax).
787-8 – 2 class (242 pax).
I am wondering how 225-275 pax sits within that perceived void – that seems to favour being too big, and encroaching well into the bottom end of the B787?
Surely the void is a configuration approximately 2 class 200-225 pax – which would take the aircraft closer in size to B752/B762 and not jump straight up to B753/B763 size.
I know airlines often scream that their aircraft are too small, but we (and the airlines themselves) seem to forget that frequently they have a glut of capacity too and lament their aircraft being oversized.
It just seems odd that the sizing doesn’t really fit neatly into the gap they show via aircraft specs.
John Reid
says:I flew a fair amount on 757s of Ethiopian and others out of Rome. I don’t understand why anybody wants to repeat that “737-twice-as-long” feeling. 767NEO, yes!
Trogdor
says:@random – it’s not so much the passenger numbers but the range.
Operating a 797 with 250 people on a route such as Sydney to Perth (or even more so Sydney – Melbourne) will ways be more efficient than using a 787 on the same route. I suspect that in due course we will get a further 797 stretch that can take 300 people over a similar range to an A321LR
Gary Vermaak
says:Rather apt title for this article, don’t you think? Sums up the airlines’ #MoM segment strategy very well – squeeze more and more pax into a single isle aircraft for longer and longer flights!
What the airlines really want is a twin isle for easy boarding and disembarkment but with the economics of an A321NEO / A321LR
Darren
says:Yep,
The 787 will be a smaller version of the 757!
Sam
says:@gary
I frequently fly full A321s (230 pax) and we can turn them around in 40 mins. If anything it’s usually the containers coming off and on which takes longer.
Chuck
says:@Trogdor – I have to agree with Random and Holden.
I think it’s actually both pax numbers AND range.
B737MAx10: 2 class – 188-204 pax and 3300nm range
B787-8: 2 class – 242 pax and 7355nm range
Older aircraft like B752/B762ER:
B752: 2 class – 200 pax and 3915nm range
B762ER: 214 pax and 6900nm range
A321NEO/LR: 2 class – 206 pax and 4000nm
A solution that uses a range/payload combination that sits in between B752/B762ER would seem to give best coverage of the perceived ‘void’. (ie – a new aircraft encompassing 190-225 pax in 2 class; approx 5500nm range).
Looking at what Randy Tinseth has said above, there are a vast number of ‘new’ route combinations waiting to be exploited. Many of these are not large volume markets – they are just city pairs that are yet to be connected, and in many cases it’s because existing aircraft are both too range limited, just too big or both. That is absolutely the case for international connections from Australian regional cities, and likewise a huge number of direct connections across the Atlantic, along with existing and new city pairs within Asia.
Building the NMA/B797(?) so it ends up significantly overlapping the bottom of the B787 market makes no sense what-so-ever. By advocating potential size growth up towards 300 seats Boeing just risks undermining the B787-8. At that size the NMA/B797(?) would absolutely kill the B787-8 if it achieves A321LR ecenomics. Boeing is better off being in the middle ground (190-225pax; 5500 nm range) which will give it ample opportunity grow or shrink any new airframe so that it cusps existing Boeing aircraft.
Scott
says:I agree with random the gap is approx 220-240 2 class with short range weight savings v 788
Marcus
says:Great article generating a lot of discussion.
Trogdor
says:@Chuck – interesting points.
But I think there’s a segment you’ve overlooked – there’s a lot of airlines that are running 2-6 hour long flights that want something substantially bigger than a 737/A320 but simply don’t need the range (and associated additional costs) of a 787.
Having a 797 that edges pretty close to the seating capacity of a 787-8 but falls short on range isn’t any different to having a 787-10 that sits close to the seating capacity of a 777-8 (but likewise falls short on range).
While the current long/thin routes get the publicity, I think there’s an awful lot of airlines (including Qantas) who will pick up 797s to run shorter routes as a 737 replacement, especially at airports where slots are scarce but passengers numbers are increasing.
Ted
says:Some of the specs listed here are remarkably similar to A310-300.
A310-300 – MZFW 116,000kg (2 class 220 pax, 5100nmi range),
Interesting are the A321LR specs, and particularly the MZFW & MTOW difference between narrow and widebody.
A321LR – MZFW 73,000kg (2 class 206 pax, 4000nmi range).
A big factor in effectively ‘iterating’ the design of this new Boeing aircraft is going to be MZFW (and corresponding MTOW). B757-200 was 84,000kg MZFW, and B767-200ER was 118,000kg MZFW – that’s a statistically significant difference.
However Boeing iterates the design, it will be trying to find an MZFW and MTOW that is considerably lower than A310-300 or B767-200ER. Composites and new alloys are technically limited in how much they can contribute – a safe figure would be the generic 20% weight saving over aluminium aircraft that Boeing used for B787, but that only gets an NMA/B797 MZFW of 93,000kg – still 9t heavier than B757-200 and 20t heavier than A321LR.
This will require stripping out (lightweighting) more weight from MZFW (primarily undercarriage and wing designs) but on an order of magnitude not yet seen – a widebody with narrowbody-like MZFW is really what the airlines want.
The B787-8 MZFW is 161,000kg – an order of magnitude larger again – which shows why a revised / truncated version of the B787-8 is not favoured as a solution to the market gap.
Random
says:What we are effectively seeing here in this forum are 2 different aircraft – both with seemingly viable markets.
I’m not sure that one airframe can do both roles, unless the commercial team at Boeing are miracle workers.
Aircraft 1 –
Oversized (250-300 seat) domestic-focussed lightweight widebody, that gives extra pax & freight capacity over B738/A320, with easy transcontinental range (what Qantas seems keen on).
Aircraft 2 –
Undersized (200-230 seat) international-focussed widebody, that gives significant extra range over B737/A321 without the weight penalty of jumping up to A330/B787 (what 757 & 767 officianados seem to think is missing).
Can these two requirements live within one airframe / one aircraft DNA without unduly compromising or diluting the basic mission of the other?
Marty P.
says:Wow! What a puzzle. As an oldie in the business, for what its worth, A B767-200LR-NEO could be the answer.
A B767-200 minus a number of frames could achieve the required length. It already has the fuselage width.
Thrust rated GE’s and the inclusion of folding winglets-as with 777x on new wings. I’m certain Boeing still
holds the B767 jigs and frames so it would appear a much more beneficial situation financially. Cockpit as in
787/777 for easy conversion for pilots. Common rated! Good luck Boeing, you have a big decision to make.
JKH
says:Pax, Range + Turnaround time. If only pax comfort could be a consideration as well!
767 2/3/2 economy seating config was the best. 787 width and 3/3/3/ is shameful.
It would be excellent to be able to fly in a smallish w/b aircraft on shorter hops and short long haul hops versus crummy N/B aircraft. 737’s are feral from a passenger perspective but the economical work-horses which is all that airlines care about.
AlanH
says:So much of this discussion centres around what the airlines want. Are any of them thinking about what the pax might want? The NMA, if it actually takes off, must be a mid-sized twin-aisle (like the A330/B767) for the sake of passenger comfort and travel experience and easier/quicker ingress/egress surely. Long, thin sardine tubes are not what pax want for extended flights. The day of the B757 is long past.
Ron Lambert
says:AHHHh the DC-8 is back !!!