a reply to: Zaphod58
95% of the OLD 757 routes, yes, and I understand why nobody in 1995 jumped on a prospective -ER variant.
I'd also wager that a lot has changed in terms of long-distance air travel over the past two decades (I shudder at the idea that 1995 was 20 years
The transpacific international travel market has absolutely exploded, and unlike travel between Asia and Europe, or the East coast of the US, there's
no convenient mid-way stopover point upon which to build the kind of hub-and-spoke service that makes using 787 and 777 or larger-class aircraft
feasible for most pairings involving secondary cities.
Even the term "secondary" cities is a misnomer when dealing with China, or even India, as places like Chongqing, Shenzhen, Guanzhou, Chengdu, Tianjin,
Harbin, Shenyang, Wuhan, etc are all as big if not bigger than Chicago, Frankfurt, or Paris. As China's economy continues to grow, there will only be
more and more demand for direct routes between these cities and major US cities like LA or NYC. At the same time, there will be more and more demand
for direct routings between major Asian cities and secondary US destinations like Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Orlando/Miami, etc. That's also
before you get to the potential for sales to the southern hemisphere carriers to add more direct routes to bypass the layover hell that Miami or
Frankfurt can become.
Routings like this may not be profitable using larger aircraft like 777s, A350s, or even the 787, and that's where a transpacific-capable single-aisle
design might be able to carve a niche for itself. I don't fault Boeing for not pursuing it in the 1990s, as the global economic/travel climate was
such that the market for such a plane quite simply didn't exist. Times have changed, though, and it seems today like the climate is perfect for a
sub-787 size class aircraft that has the potential for 787-type range.