Boeing's 797 and what could UA do with it
May 9, 2024, 8:35 am
#46
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Programs: UA Silver, Bonvoy Gold, Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 21,635
If Boeing still wants a twin isle and the seat rows will be 2-3-2, instead of calling it a NMA or a B797, why doesn't the Boeing Boyz just use the moniker B767 NG, which is what it would be modeled after, the 2-3-2 row seating.
With new more efficient engines and with the carry over experience of the "classic" B767's, the certification would (or should) be a no brain-er. If the Boeing folks go with a composite fuselage (for even more efficiency), now we are back to a "clean slate" B797 game again.
With new more efficient engines and with the carry over experience of the "classic" B767's, the certification would (or should) be a no brain-er. If the Boeing folks go with a composite fuselage (for even more efficiency), now we are back to a "clean slate" B797 game again.
That said, now that the airlines have made passengers accept 10-across seating, they would loathe to return to 7 or even 8-across. My guess is that even if my proposed 797 would become reality, the number of FAs required would be higher than a comparable (capacity-wise) single-aisle?
May 9, 2024, 9:05 pm
#47
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: Under the Big Oak Tree
Programs: Air Bukovina Elite, Circassian Air Gold, Carthaginian Airlines Platinum
Posts: 563
Boeing could start over with the A707 as a totally new plane, which would give them the chance to subsequently develop a B707, C707, etc.
Or they could just slap a 1 in front of everything: 1737, 1747, 1787, etc.
May 10, 2024, 5:22 am
#48
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NYC
Programs: AADULtArer
Posts: 5,906
I've been screaming for a re-engined and composite 767-200 for almost a decade now.
That said, now that the airlines have made passengers accept 10-across seating, they would loathe to return to 7 or even 8-across. My guess is that even if my proposed 797 would become reality, the number of FAs required would be higher than a comparable (capacity-wise) single-aisle?
That said, now that the airlines have made passengers accept 10-across seating, they would loathe to return to 7 or even 8-across. My guess is that even if my proposed 797 would become reality, the number of FAs required would be higher than a comparable (capacity-wise) single-aisle?
May 10, 2024, 6:03 am
#49
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,223
It would have to be a clean slate design, none of this Max lets just put bigger engines on debacle. Its probably a moot point the 767 is a 50 year old design anyway. So thats at least 10 years out. Also isnt the greater need for a 757 replacement, doesnt the 788 replace the 767 most of the time.
May 12, 2024, 3:57 am
#50
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: OSL/IAH/ZRH (time, not preference)
Programs: UA1K, LH GM, AA EXP->GM
Posts: 38,312
May 13, 2024, 12:18 am
#51
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: PHX Sky Harbor
Posts: 386
Then they can do what some Canadian provinces did when they started to run out of license plate combinations: Ontario added an extra letter, Alberta went with an extra number.
Boeing could start over with the A707 as a totally new plane, which would give them the chance to subsequently develop a B707, C707, etc.
Or they could just slap a 1 in front of everything: 1737, 1747, 1787, etc.
Boeing could start over with the A707 as a totally new plane, which would give them the chance to subsequently develop a B707, C707, etc.
Or they could just slap a 1 in front of everything: 1737, 1747, 1787, etc.
May 13, 2024, 6:57 am
#52
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: WAS
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Gold, IHG Silver, Hilton Silver, Hertz PC, National Exec Elite, Avis PC
Posts: 1,315
I liked the CO 762 that stayed with UA for a short time, especially the mini Y cabin in the front. They were around the same age as the 764s and much newer than the 763s, but I think they weren't as economical on the long hauls where they were being used.
May 13, 2024, 6:57 am
#53
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: OSL/IAH/ZRH (time, not preference)
Programs: UA1K, LH GM, AA EXP->GM
Posts: 38,312
And then they will claim to be the primary victim of all this air rage.
May 13, 2024, 8:47 am
#54
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Morris County, NJ
Programs: UA 1K/*G, Avis Pres, Marriott Plat
Posts: 2,318
I'm sure the posts are archived here somewhere, but I said at the time they should've kept those 762's -- and maybe even added to the fleet. They were young at the time - only ~12 years old or so - and super versatile.
May 14, 2024, 1:29 am
#55
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: OSL/IAH/ZRH (time, not preference)
Programs: UA1K, LH GM, AA EXP->GM
Posts: 38,312
May 14, 2024, 11:08 am
#56
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: WAS
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Gold, IHG Silver, Hilton Silver, Hertz PC, National Exec Elite, Avis PC
Posts: 1,315
Maybe because I think it was ER. I flew it from EWR to MXP, CDG and maybe MAN, and domestically to MCO. It never got lie flat seats or E+. Would have been perfect for transcons and p.s. routes.
May 14, 2024, 11:36 am
#57
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: Under the Big Oak Tree
Programs: Air Bukovina Elite, Circassian Air Gold, Carthaginian Airlines Platinum
Posts: 563
May 14, 2024, 12:38 pm
#59
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Morris County, NJ
Programs: UA 1K/*G, Avis Pres, Marriott Plat
Posts: 2,318
Great planes; they were fairly new, in great shape, comfy as could be as a passenger. As you said - would've been perfect for the transcon routes, especially in the "modern" J-heavy era. Back when they were retired, I don't think the J revenue was nearly as strong as it is now.... would've been a different cost/profit profile today I suspect.
I don't blame UA for retiring them - they were certainly niche and tailored for a few routes, but still wish they hadn't.
C'est le vie.