Originally Posted by
cmd320
This I find a bit difficult to believe. If it's just a matter of thinner sidewalls, I feel like we would have seen basically every airline go 2-4-2 on these planes. Cabin width on the 767 is 186in vs 222in on the A300 (and I would assume 310/330/340), a difference of 3ft. I'm not sure how they could possibly get an additional 3ft out of thinner sidewalls.
767 with sidewall sculpting could uncomfortably do 8 abreast. To be clear, sidewall sculpting is not something an airliner can do.
The 767 has flown in 8 abreast torture chamber configurations with seats only a bit over 16" wide:
here's an exmaple. SeatGuru reports the seats as 18" wide, but that is obviously impossible. They are almost certainly 16.5" or so.
Originally Posted by kjnangre
If Boeing does anything, it will be based on the 757, not the 767, IMO. The economics of a small widebody just don't work.
I think this is the first time I've ever said this, but I actually agree with readywhenyouare. If Boeing does a MoM aircraft off an existing frame (i.e. not the NSA and definitely not the hypothetical widebody MoMA)) it will be a rebuilt 767. Boeing admitted to looking into this recently, and unlike the 757, the 767 still has an active supply chain and is under manufacture still today (for military planes). This makes it much easier from a cost perspective to next-gen it than a completely done and dead airframe like the 757.
That said, after the MAX fiasco, I wonder how much interest Boeing has in extending its reputation for pushing a frame past it's end-of-life. My guess is they double down on the NSA, ensure the design is flexible to allow for a larger narrowbody, and go from there. Boeing does not have the money to make high-risk gambles like a 767X. The NSA will suck up all their money, and that is a strategic imperative they absolutely have to have unless they want to cede narrowbody market to Airbus entirely. The current MAX is competitive with the neo, but that won't be true for the generation after this.