ethernal

Agree that the A322 is possible, but it would be severely field limited performance without some major engine rework. The A322 people are currently talking about is a people-hauler: shorter (<3000 nmi range), essentially trading higher range for passenger capacity. To get both passenger capacity plus the range for MoM is a much bigger ask.

Boeing won't make a 787-3. To make it fuel efficient would require significant changes. Boeing is better off on making an artificially low MTOW-capped 789/788 at a discount to fit the use case.

readywhenyouare

A 767X as an interim solution is still an option Boeing hasn't ruled out. It would use the engines on the 747-8i. So no need to wait on a new powerplant. Using thinner sidewall moldings they could make it a 2-4-2 configuration without losing any seat width.

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.

readywhenyouare

Delta was planning on going to 2-4-2 around 2008 but the seat manufacturer went out of business. I'll see if I can find the photos Delta used in the promotion.

United managed to put the same seat on their 737Max as they have on their A320/319. They just reduced the size of the armrest. So there are all kinds of ways to do it.

readywhenyouare

Here are the prototype seats (blue seats on front row) that were going to be used on the 767. The Delta Museum is selling them off at auction.

Mountain Explorer

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.

ClipperDelta

And contrary to popular belief, that 763 was actually not getting the new D1 seats with these mods - the only mods scheduled were the addition of the PS cabin and a refresh of the Coach seats/cabin.

socalflying

Just so I'm clear...you're comparing putting the same number of seats into a cabin that's 7" narrower to adding an extra seat per row to a B767?

Mountain Explorer

How do you know that it wasn't getting a D1 upgrade?

readywhenyouare

I'm not sure why you're confused. I was giving an example of how room can be made to accommodate different fixtures in an aircraft. You act as if I'm the one who came up with some crazy idea.

ClipperDelta

I am not so sure. Pre-Covid, Ed and Glen had mentioned in one of the investor calls that they were not at all convinced of the economics of a narrow-body single-aisle transoceanic aircraft for Delta. One of the points is that as employee (and especially pilot) wages go up, they need more seats to spread those costs. Delta places a lot of importance on unit costs, hence they had been on an upgauging track both domestically and internationally. Also, remember that this is 2025 we are looking at, where they estimate they would be back to 2019 traffic levels or better, which means their upgauging strategy should be valid again. I think the thinner routes will be replaced by the 764s and A332s, while some current 764 and A332 routes can be upgauged to the A339. Just like on the domestic side, there won't be these one-for-one replacements (e.g., they had ordered a massive fleet of A321s to replace everything from the MD88/90s to 757s). Total capacity can be mitigated by maybe adjusting the number of US gateways for a destination.

ClipperDelta

Folks from TechOps...

socalflying

Not confused, just didn't seem like a very apt comparison. Finding 7" is much easier than finding at least 16" for an extra seat. And, as I believe Thomas Cook was the only airline that went 8 wide with the B767, there must be some reason all other airlines found it to be a more difficult/less desirable solution. But, hey, maybe that's just me...

readywhenyouare

Do you really think Delta was going to cram people in like Thomas Cook? Really?

As shown, if you bothered paying attention, the seating would have been staggered to provide the expected comfort level.

ethernal

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.



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.