Boeing's 797 and what could UA do with it
May 14, 2024, 6:29 pm
#61
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,885
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.
I still have great memories of 2-5-2 on the 777.
May 14, 2024, 8:41 pm
#62
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 229
Yes, they were 767-200ERs, and it definitely served the South American market at least under pmCO, if not post-merger. In fact, as I recall, Boeing reopened the 767-200 order books just for Continental. (Bethune may have had a friend or two at Boeing back then ...)
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.
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.
CO buying them when they did was a stupid decision. It was already inefficient by then, airlines were moving on and the last non VIP order was like 5 years prior.
May 14, 2024, 10:57 pm
#63
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Saipan, MP 96950 USA (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands = the CNMI)
Programs: UA Silver, Hilton Silver. Life: UA .57 MM, United & Admirals Clubs (spousal), Marriott Platinum
Posts: 15,384
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.
[ : D , no space between the two characters].