Baze

There is a max number of seats a plane is rated for. Don't think any US carrier has that many. A plane is rated for all economy packed like sardines.

http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?...ol.3,Ch30,Sec9

MikeMpls

The range of the 753 is 3400 miles, not 2000 miles. The range of the 797 might be higher (and note that they are only floating the concept, nothing is definite), but scarcely "massively" higher.

sbm12

The 753 is mostly used on routes up to ~2000 miles today, not 3400 miles. And while I've noted a few times nothing is definite in the NMA design spec (including 797 name ) a 5200nm design range is about 70% higher than 3000nm the 753s is spec'd at. I consider that a massive jump.

PHLGovFlyer

Good point. Having two aisles effectively doubles the number of passengers that are able to simultaneously remove their bags from the overheads. This speeds the deplaning process overall by reducing the impact of the "bottlenecks" that are formed by individual passengers removing their bags as you describe. Deplaning is also more efficient when you have what amounts to more aisles per passenger in a given row. So a 2-3-2 configuration has 3.5 passengers per per aisle in a row, while a 3-3 configuration has 6 passengers per aisle. Fewer passengers per row per aisle results in less bottlenecks due to time for baggage removal from the overheads. Having an aircraft where part of the passenger cabin is forward of the boarding door (in a single boarding door configuration) also helps because it further reduces the likelihood of bottlenecks in the aisles (it does increase the likelihood of potential bottlenecks at the door however).

Isn't the "tipping point" you describe really just the range at which flying a route becomes economically nonviable due to the large amount of fuel needed to add a small amount of range as you approach an aircraft's maximum range? IOW, aircraft aren't really going from "burning less fuel per extra nmi to burning more fuel per extra nmi". Aircraft always burn more fuel per mile as every mile of range is added to their flight profile (more range=more fuel initially loaded=more weight at every point in the flight=more drag at every point in the flight=more fuel burned at every point in the flight). The issue is really that the extra fuel needed to conduct missions at the maximum range of an aircraft is proportionally much greater than that needed to conduct a mission at medium ranges.

wh6cto

There may be another "tipping point" that comes into play: where weight restrictions take effect, as it becomes necessary to reduce payload to carry the necessary fuel. Turning away passengers and cargo means less revenue for the carrier, so there's definitely change in cost per mile at that point.

Talking about cargo, the A32x can take LD3-45 containers, so can take cargo on the same footprint. The B757 is bulk cargo, so that restricts ability to take palletized cargo, so it is at a disadvantage. ULD containers can also (potentially) improve turnaround time. On the B787 they made a point of maximizing cargo capacity, so I wouldn't be surprised if they do the same on the B797.

airline101

Love all the feedback!!! I would just love for UA to use this on more high demand routes than a 739. Its always a good feeling when I get a 763 or any other wide body on a domestic route and have twin aisle.

ChamplinAl

Can I put my 2 cents worth into the discussion. Boeing has current narrow bodies that has the capacity up to 220 seats (737MAX10's) and Wide bodies from 260 seats (787-800's). The "797's appear not to have a clear position (nitch) anywhere in either narrow or wide category. The only question is whether its an aircraft for international or domestic usage (a 757 replacement basically being a domestic aircraft) or international usage (a 767 replacement is the international aircraft). So, that being said, Boeing would receive a lot more satisfied customers by building a smaller international wide body aircraft at or just larger the the current 737MAX10 - in the neighborhood of 230 seat up to 260 seat aircraft. Now, that being said, can Boeing build such an aircraft and get it economical enough to use on (I guess) on the TATL routes exclusively? Maybe I'm way off base on my thinking - please give feedback, I'm all ears.

mduell

TATL TATL TATL

Maybe P.S. if they ever develop a strategy there instead of throwing random equipment at it.

Perhaps some odd south america and hawaii services where they can't justify a widebody or want frequency without multiple widebodies

trooper

But the 797 is meant to be a stretched 747 with a 5th engine in the tail!!! I read the book!! ()

lhrsfo

I don't really see how the 797 fits between the more capable A321 aircraft and the smallest B787 aircraft to make it a sensible proposition. The market for this niche is not huge and Airbus is already filling it with a strong proposition. I know the 321 is not a great fit for all-Boeing operators but there aren't too many of those who need something like the 797.